The Trump Card...

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
In the same way that Hillary used a hammer on her cell phones, I would not be opposed to someone in the White House using a hammer on Trump's fingers every time he reached for the phone.

It seems most people -- Democrats, Republicans and independents alike -- believe that Trump would be better off if he simply stopped tweeting. He has no doubt been told to do so many times by people on his staff but he persists.

I attribute that to his intense narcissism. While it is not rational for a person in Trump's circumstances to tweet the things he does, it makes perfect sense to a compulsive narcissist who craves adoration and believes everything is about him. Trump cannot not attack his enemies. He cannot not lie when a lie makes him feel better in the moment. In the end, it will be this narcissism that will bring him down.

Trump boasted on the campaign trail that he hires the best people. With his pick of attorney Ty Cobb to manage the response to the Russia thing, Trump may have finally gotten around to doing so in this area. By all accounts, Cobb is the man for this job. What remains to be seen is whether or not Trump will follow Cobb's guidance, which is likely to include "stop tweeting and stop talking about the Russia thing."

So far, Trump has shown he has more confidence in his instincts than his attorneys. Maybe it will be different with Cobb but I doubt it.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Ask Putin where Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails are?
And that's how Mr T started this whole thing

Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app
That's funny right there. At a campaign rally, Trump was just giving the crowd red meat. And the Fake News media took it as a smoking gun of Trump being in cahoots with Putin. They're either playing dumb by acting like they don't know what campaign rhetoric is or they are actually that stupid.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Offline
Sure, and so is who is behind this concocted, cockamamie Russian thing.

That is why the investigations are underway, to answer that question.

Do you think Mueller and his team, (staffed with at least a few investigators that are Hillary supporters )will even look at the angle that it was concocted by Hillary's campaign? I have my doubts.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Do you think Mueller and his team, (staffed with at least a few investigators that are Hillary supporters )will even look at the angle that it was concocted by Hillary's campaign? I have my doubts.

I think the investigators will follow the facts to wherever they lead, including Hillary's campaign, if they lead in that direction. I believe this because the team is led by a lawman who is widely regarded as a person of integrity. I also believe it because a person who contributes money to a particular candidate does not thereby lose the ability to be objective and professional in one's work.

If you looked at my track record of political contributions, you would find contributions made to a certain candidate. If that is the sole fact you used to determine that I had a political bias of a particular sort and then used that to conclude that I was incapable of doing objective work, you would be mistaken.

Police officers all have biases but they issue citations to people of all stripes. For example, just because a police officer may be favorably disposed to a Republican point of view, he or she is as likely to cite a Republican as a Democrat; not because the officer is a political party member but because he/she is a professional.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Ask Putin where Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails are?
And that's how Mr T started this whole thing

Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app
That's funny right there. At a campaign rally, Trump was just giving the crowd red meat. And the Fake News media took it as a smoking gun of Trump being in cahoots with Putin. They're either playing dumb by acting like they don't know what campaign rhetoric is or they are actually that stupid.

Journalists and the commentators you see in the newspaper columns and TV news are not stupid. They are highly educated, highly intelligent people who, in an industry filled with the same have made it to the top of the game. That said, the anti-Trump journalists and commentators are indeed making more out of the ill-advised comment Trump made at a rally than the comment merits.

Like you, I don't think Trump meant anything beyond humor when he asked for Russia's help in finding the missing emails. However, the fact that he said it shows poor judgement on his part. Even after all that has happened and even after some courts have accepted some of Trump's tweets and statements as evidence in certain cases, Trump continues to tweet and talk with reckless abandon.

There is a reason presidents act and speak in presidential ways. Trump has yet to become presidential. With nearly six months in office, it does not appear he ever will. Some of his supporters will rejoice in that fact, but in the long run, I think Trump's non-presidential ways will hurt him more than help.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Unfortunately, that same Free Press covers the two equally important stories wildly differently.

And they do so at their own peril. I am troubled by the polling that shows a long-term decline of American trust in American institutions. People don't trust the government, the press, and a number of other institutions like they did decades ago. This trust has declined over a long period of time, regardless of who the president is or what party controls congress.

Watching a bit of cable commentary yesterday, I saw a journalist talk about how the media is as unpopular and untrusted as congress. She said this is a serious issue and "we," meaning the media, need to address this. The anchor ignored her point and turned to another guest with another question. When the first guest raised the point again later in the show, the point was ignored again. It was as if her words were not even said. It was as if nothing registered with the anchor at all.

We've all had it happen when driving that we look but do not see. We're at an intersection ready to pull onto the cross street. We look both ways and determine it's clear. We begin to roll and see at the last minute that there's a car in a lane that we did not see just a moment ago. We looked but did not see. That's what this anchor did on this show. He heard but did not hear.

Among journalists, there are those who are sounding the alarm. They are trying to shift the focus onto the truly serious issues facing the media today. But like an alcoholic who does not think he has a drinking problem, the collective body of journalists continue blind in their self-destructive ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Turtle

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
whats the big deal here?

The answer to your question depends on who is being asked. To some, the big deal is the baseless and unfair reporting that is intended to destroy Trump. To others, the big deal is the profound threat to the integrity of our voting process that may exist. To still others, the big deal is morally repugnant idea that a campaign may have colluded with a hostile foreign government to acquire the vast powers of the presidency; and with it the ability to repay that government for its help by giving that government what it wants and putting America's interests second. To others, the big deal is the opportunity it presents for opposition groups and candidates to exploit. Those groups view "the Russia thing" more as a gift to be exploited than than a problem to be solved.

I could fill several pages answering your question. The short story is the big deal is what people see it to be.
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
My guess would be Hillary's campaign who gave the Fake News media their marching orders.
Article excerpt below: (emphasis mine)

... they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.

The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan — pushing the press to cover how “Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio,” while “hammering the media for focusing so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, which had created a cloud over her candidacy,” the authors wrote.

'Shattered' Revelation: Clinton Campaign Hatched Russian Hacking Narrative 24 Hours After Hillary's Loss

I have no doubt this happened. All campaigns and political organizations try to control the narrative. While I believe what you cite did indeed happen, I do not think it had an effect beyond the next news cycle or two.

Hillary is over. She is yesterday's news. Most of her campaign operatives have scattered into other gigs. We seldom see or hear from her any more. The only articles and books of substance about Hillary that are being written now are those by former insiders who are doing the tell-all thing that every public figure receives as he/she fades from the public eye.

The Hillary campaign did not launch investigations into the Russia thing. The Republicans and the Trump administration did. When they did so, they did not say, "Wow the Democrats think something is up here, we better look into it." The Republicans did not say, "If the New York Times says it's true, it must be true." They did not say the Republican voters back home who put me in office are demanding an investigation so I better vote to initiate one." They did not say, "Wow, the Hillary operatives are trying to define the narrative so we better buy into it right away and launch probes."

The Republicans and Trump Administration launched these probes for reasons of their own; not because the Democrats concocted a narrative that was intended to justify Hillary and explain away her defeat. While that pro-Hillary narrative was indeed concocted, it had little effect then and is having zero effect today.
 
Last edited:

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
IMO some of this Trump stuff is just plain inexperience coming from a NON political family..that is used to doing what they want and when they want too without question...Trump Jr should have walked away and said No Thanks..but his curiousity got the better of him...and now we have yet another issue...I really think its a lot to do about nothing.

If an inexperienced truck driver, new behind the wheel, drives a big rig into a low bridge and thereby causes a HAZMAT spill with a non-placarded truck, should that be dismissed as a lot to do about nothing?

The inexperience argument fails because Trump and his associates are in a real driver's seat now, where their words and deeds, however motivated and however wise or unwise, have real consequences.

When you get a CDL, the CDL duties and responsibilities come with it. So too with the presidency, regardless of the level of experience one has.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
IMO some of this Trump stuff is just plain inexperience coming from a NON political family..that is used to doing what they want and when they want too without question...Trump Jr should have walked away and said No Thanks..but his curiousity got the better of him...and now we have yet another issue...I really think its a lot to do about nothing.

If an inexperienced truck driver, new behind the wheel, drives a big rig into a low bridge and thereby causes a HAZMAT spill with a non-placarded truck, should that be dismissed as a lot to do about nothing?

The inexperience argument fails because Trump and his associates are in a real driver's seat now, where their words and deeds, however motivated and however wise or unwise, have real consequences.

When you get a CDL, the CDL duties and responsibilities come with it. So too with the presidency, regardless of the level of experience one has.
I've been trying to determine where to fit this editorial in..... this seems to be a good spot....

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/op...-outsider-finley-insider-political/103725600/
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Offline
IMO some of this Trump stuff is just plain inexperience coming from a NON political family..that is used to doing what they want and when they want too without question...Trump Jr should have walked away and said No Thanks..but his curiousity got the better of him...and now we have yet another issue...I really think its a lot to do about nothing.

If an inexperienced truck driver, new behind the wheel, drives a big rig into a low bridge and thereby causes a HAZMAT spill with a non-placarded truck, should that be dismissed as a lot to do about nothing?

The inexperience argument fails because Trump and his associates are in a real driver's seat now, where their words and deeds, however motivated and however wise or unwise, have real consequences.

When you get a CDL, the CDL duties and responsibilities come with it. So too with the presidency, regardless of the level of experience one has.
I agree....to a point. Lack of experience should be no real excuse...BUT miss steps and errors will be made...IE: fender benders...hopefully.
 

xmudman

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Offline
As for me, I strongly prefer governors over senators as presidents. Governors have chief executive experience that senators don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ragman

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
IMO some of this Trump stuff is just plain inexperience coming from a NON political family..that is used to doing what they want and when they want too without question...Trump Jr should have walked away and said No Thanks..but his curiousity got the better of him...and now
As for me, I strongly prefer governors over senators as presidents. Governors have chief executive experience that senators don't.
Although, Senators at least have some government experience. This electing a businessman to run the government like a business is a bunch of crap, as first Michigan Gov. Snyder and now Trump has proven.

Both are out of their league. Imo
 

OntarioVanMan

Retired Expediter
Owner/Operator
Offline
I kind of agree with you 2.
A businessman is geared to make a profit
Government is pretty much a bit for profit deal.
 

Worn Out Manager

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
US Air Force
Offline
And, of course, the tweeting continues today. To paraphrase Mr. T - "Look at Hillary, she's an evil person, she cheated, wah, wah, wah". Who cares what Hillary did, she lost, she's last year's news! Donald it's time to focus on the here and now.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app
 

Worn Out Manager

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
US Air Force
Offline
As for me, I strongly prefer governors over senators as presidents. Governors have chief executive experience that senators don't.
I finally agree with you. If only so many of y'all weren't sucked in to the "wouldn't Donald Trump be a refreshing change" idea we would probably have a good solid Republican president. I never wanted a third Bush but I sure wish we had one now. I still think about what we might have with a Kasich-Rubio ticket right now. Oh well, like Hillary, that's old news now

Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app
 

ATeam

Senior Member
Retired Expediter
Offline
Although, Senators at least have some government experience. This electing a businessman to run the government like a business is a bunch of crap, as first Michigan Gov. Snyder and now Trump has proven.

Both are out of their league. Imo

It depends on the person, does it not? Senators sometimes become governors, governors sometimes become senators and business people sometimes become both. Whether a person can make the transition from one domain to another depends more on that person's ability to adapt than anything else.

That said, trying to run the government like a business is fool-hearty at best. The government is not a business, just like a family is not a military unit, a church is not a factory, a school is not a hospital and a trucking company is not a travel agency. While it is certainly possible for one entity to draw lessons of efficiency, fidelity, creativity, care and other such things from others, it is important to remember the core purpose and nature of the entity you lead. If you try to run an entity as if it was something else, troubles will rise that you would not otherwise have.
 
Last edited:

Worn Out Manager

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
US Air Force
Offline
Slightly different subject, what do y'all make of Pence. Do you think he buys into the Trump ideology or is he just following a script that is laid out for him?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Offline
Although, Senators at least have some government experience. This electing a businessman to run the government like a business is a bunch of crap, as first Michigan Gov. Snyder and now Trump has proven.

Both are out of their league. Imo

It depends on the person, does it not? Senators sometimes become governors, governors sometimes become senators and business people sometimes become both. Whether a person can make the transition from one domain to another depends more on that person's ability to adapt than anything else.

That said, trying to run the government like a business is fool-hearty at best. The government is not a business, just like a family is not a military unit, a church is not a factory, a school is not a hospital and a trucking company is not a travel agency. While it is certainly possible for one entity to draw lessons of efficiency, fidelity, creativity, care and other such things from others, it is important to remember the core purpose and nature of the entity you lead. If you try to run an entity as if it was something else, troubles will rise that you would not otherwise have.
Agreed....
 
Top