A Different Look at Trump

Thanks go to Peggy for this find….

A different take on Donald Trump:  (a non-political agenda)

Trump Is Not A Liberal or Conservative, He’s a “Pragmatist.”

(Definition: A pragmatist is someone who is practical and focused on reaching a goal. A pragmatist usually has a straightforward, matter-of-fact approach and doesn’t let emotion distract him or her.)

“We recently enjoyed a belated holiday dinner with friends at the home of other friends. The dinner conversation varied from discussions about antique glass and china to theology and politics.

At one point, reference was made to Donald Trump being a conservative, to which I responded that Trump is not a conservative.

I said that I neither view nor do I believe Trump views himself as a conservative. I stated it was my opinion that Trump is a pragmatist. He sees a problem and  understands it must be fixed. He doesn’t see the problem as liberal or conservative, he sees it only as a problem. That is a quality that should be admired and applauded, not condemned. But I get ahead of myself.

Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

Immigration isn’t a Republican problem, it isn’t a Liberal problem, it is a problem that threatens the very fabric and infrastructure of America. It demands a pragmatic approach not an approach that is intended to appease one group or another.

The impending collapse of the economy wasn’t a Liberal or Conservative problem, it is an American problem. That said, until it is viewed as a problem that demands a common sense approach to resolution, it will never be fixed because the Democrats and Republicans know only one way to fix things and the longevity of  their impracticality has proven to have no lasting effect.

Successful businessmen like Donald Trump find ways to make things work, they do not promise to accommodate.

Trump uniquely understands that China’s manipulation of currency is not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem. It is a problem that threatens our financial stability and he understands the proper balance needed to fix it.

Here again, successful businessmen like Trump who have weathered the changing tides of economic reality understand what is necessary to make business work, and they, unlike both sides of the political aisle, know that if something doesn’t work, you don’t continue trying to make it work hoping that at some point it will.

As a pragmatist, Donald Trump hasn’t made wild pie-in-the-sky promises of a cell phone in every pocket, free college tuition, and a $15 hour minimum wage for working the drive-through at Carl’s Hamburgers.

I argue that America needs pragmatists because pragmatists see a problem and find ways to fix them. They do not see a problem and compound it by creating more problems.

You may not like Donald Trump, but I suspect that the reason some people do not like him is because:

(1) he is antithetical to the “good old boy” method of brokering backroom deals that fatten the coffers of politicians;

(2) they are unaccustomed to hearing a president speak who is unencumbered by the financial shackles of those who he owes vis-a-vis donations;

(3) he is someone who is free of idiomatic political ideology;

(4) he says what he is thinking, is unapologetic for his outspoken thoughts, speaks very straightforward using everyday language that can be understood by all (and is offensive to some who dislike him anyway) making him a great communicator, for the most part, does what he says he will do and;

 (5) he is someone who understands that it takes more than hollow promises and political correctness to make America great again.

Listening to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders talk about fixing America is like listening to two lunatics trying to “out crazy” one another. Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don’t give tens of millions without expecting something in return

We have had Democrats and Republican ideologues and what has it brought us? Are we better off today or worse off? Has it happened overnight or has it been a steady decline brought on by both parties?

I submit that a pragmatist is just what America needs right now. People are quick to confuse and despise confidence as arrogance, but that is common among those who have never accomplished anything in their lives (or politicians who never really solved a problem, because it’s better to still have an “issue(s) to be solved,” so re-elect me to solve it, (which never happens) and those who have always played it safe (again, all politicians) not willing to risk failure, to try and achieve success).

Donald Trump put his total financial empire at risk in running for president and certainly did not need or possibly even want the job; that says it all. He wants success for the U.S. and her citizens because he loves his country!

 

This entry was posted in politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to A Different Look at Trump

  1. J. Soden says:

    EXCELLENT!!!!
    Wound up being an accidental lobbyist some years ago in DC. But that’s another story . . . . .
    Thought then that if the majority of Americans were able to participate in how DC works, there’d be a 2nd American Revolution.
    And there was – with TheDonald’s election!

    Thanks to both Peggy and Post Scripts!

  2. Libby says:

    Peggy … what, exactly? … has the man accomplished?

    That stunt with Trudeau may have been the final nail in the man’s geopolitical coffin. He can’t accomplish anything internationally if no one will deal with him.

    I will grant you one thing, the executive branch of this nation’s federal government has never been leaner! I anticipate that 2020 brings us the tragically enfeebled Trump, wandering the cobweb shrouded halls of the White House in his rusty, ragged inauguration suit, calling out to people gone long ago.

    • Tina says:

      Since your media is not interested, Libby, April 2017, Whitehouse.gov, “President Trump’s 100 Days of Historic Accomplishments.” He hit the ground running:

      President Trump has signed 13 Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions in his first 100 days, more than any other President. These resolutions nullified unnecessary regulations and block agencies from reissuing them. ** Despite historic Democrat obstructionism…President Trump has worked with Congress to enact 28 laws during the first 100 days of his Administration.

      December 29, 2017, Rassmussen, “Trump’s First Year Accomplishments Compiled In Shockingly Long List”

      Looking back on President Donald Trump’s first year in office, he has compiled a shockingly strong record and long list of accomplishments. As was also the case with his rise to the presidency, President Trump has broken several records for a first-year commander-in-chief and fulfilled many of his key campaign promises.

      Now, that’s not to say he hasn’t had failures and it’s not to mask the fact that many of these accomplishments were unilateral. But it is also true that President Trump has faced an unprecedented level of never-ending obstruction throughout the year. He was the first president in memory to be deprived of the “honeymoon” period after Inauguration Day and, frankly, opposition at times has risen to levels that could arguably constitute downright treason. … Looking back on President Donald Trump’s first year in office, he has compiled a shockingly strong record and long list of accomplishments. As was also the case with his rise to the presidency, President Trump has broken several records for a first-year commander-in-chief and fulfilled many of his key campaign promises.

      Now, that’s not to say he hasn’t had failures and it’s not to mask the fact that many of these accomplishments were unilateral. But it is also true that President Trump has faced an unprecedented level of never-ending obstruction throughout the year. He was the first president in memory to be deprived of the “honeymoon” period after Inauguration Day and, frankly, opposition at times has risen to levels that could arguably constitute downright treason. … Here’s a long but still incomplete list of accomplishments during his first year in office: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act * Repealed Individual Mandate * Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) * Justice Neil Gorsuch * Set Record for First-Year Judicial Appointments to Federal Appellate Courts * Historic Reduction in Illegal Immigration * Crushing ISIS Caliphate * Resurgence of U.S. Economy — the American Spirit * Stock Market Records, Wealth Creation * Reviving the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) * VA Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act (VA Reforms) * North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Reforms * 81 Signed Legislative Accomplishments

      That is an incomplete sampling for 2017. None of it includes things that department heads have accomplished behind the scenes…downsizing for instance. This man knows how to lead, seeks solutions, and actually expects people to perform! If they don’t he does not hesitate to let someone else take a shot. Incredible! And he’s done this despite Democrat and republican resistance.

      Libby your media does not keep you well informed, in fact, it keeps you in the dark and feeds you BS…better known as liberal spin. All you get is the phony Russia story. Even then, you fail to hear about the mountain of corruption surrounding that story that is being uncovered daily.

      • Peggy says:

        Libs, I ditto what Tina said. You really need to come out of your liberal bubble to learn the facts and what is being accomplished by this administration.

      • Chris says:

        He was the first president in memory to be deprived of the “honeymoon” period after Inauguration Day and, frankly, opposition at times has risen to levels that could arguably constitute downright treason. …

        Yes, that sounds like a totally neutral and unbiased source.

        Resurgence of U.S. Economy

        That isn’t even his accomplishment. Job growth is happening at the same rate as it was in the last few years of the Obama administration, and in some months it’s been less.

        This man knows how to lead

        And yet his underlings are fleeing like rats off a sinking ship.

        But you’ll never flee. You’ll go down with it.

      • Tina says:

        Today in the Daily Caller, “Two Million Americans Got Off Food Stamps In Trump’s First Year”

        The source of the information was a U.S. Agriculture Department (USDA) report.

        • Chris says:

          At the peak of food stamp enrollment in December 2012, a total of 47.8 million were receiving aid, an increase of nearly 16 million or 49 percent.

          But then millions melted from the rolls as employment and incomes improved, and as Congress cut benefit levels, which dropped to a monthly average of around $124 per person in Obama’s final month.

          Measured from his first month to his last, benefit levels and enrollment both grew less under Obama than under his predecessor.

          Under George W. Bush, the number of people getting food stamps grew by 14.7 million, or 85 percent (compared with the 10.7 million, 33 percent gain under Obama). The average monthly benefit per person grew from $73.89 in the month Bush took office to $113.60 the month he left. That’s a 54 percent increase, compared with the 9 percent gain at the end of Obama’s time in office.

          https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/

          • Tina says:

            Unemployment numbers were falling in the last years under Obama as was food stamp participation. That doesn’t excuse the eight years of low growth, low wages and lousy opportunity that were a direct result of Obama’s economic policies and resulted in more people being dependent on government. The recession, which began under Bush ended in Spring 2009. Had Obama done things differently we would not have experienced that long horrible non-recovery.

            Just prior to his second term Newsbusters reported that food stamp enrollment under Obama was more than Bush’s eight years…

            November 2012, NewsBusters reports: Consider it a grim, hidden, unreported milestone, and yet another media failure.

            The grim milestone relates to the increase in food stamp enrollment during the Obama administration. As Dave Gibson at Examiner.com noted on Saturday, the administration and campaign (as if there was any difference) did not release program participation data for August until three days after the election, roughly ten days after such monthly reports have typically been issued. What the data demonstrated is that food stamp enrollment during the first 43 months of the Obama administration has increased by more than it did during the entire eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, officially earning Obama the title of “Food Stamp President.” (See chart at link)

            Also please recall that during Bush’s final 2 years Democrats took control of the House. That’s where spending is done. After holding steady over three years during Bush’s final years enrollment jumped in 2008

            Tell me, what Democrat is ever not in favor of more handouts? You guys practically beg people to drop out and become dependent.

            December 2012, Frontpage Magazine provides a link to the SNAP program’s data. See the PDF file chart here for information years on 1969-2017.

            (Notice how few people needed food stamps in 1969 and how it began to rapidly rise as the “Great Society” was born!)

            More information and commentary at Forbes: The food stamp program, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), has grown from 26.3 million people in 2007 to 44.7 million last year, an increase of nearly 70 percent.

            The enrollment explosion, as Democrats point out, began with the start of the recession under President George W. Bush—though they conveniently neglect to add that they were running Congress. But the growth has accelerated under Obama, who expanded the program.

  3. Chris says:

    This would be more convincing if Trump were able to correctly identify problems, let alone propose practical solutions for them.

    Two of the major issues of his campaign, unemployment and immigration, were actually falling, and had been for quite a while, as he was claiming that they were skyrocketing. He once said the unemployment rate could be as great as 42%–a mathematical impossibility, as that number was even higher than the total number of Americans out of the workforce (which is of course larger than those who could be reasonably considered “unemployed”). He said repeatedly that the BLS numbers were fake, then considered them real when they were following the same trends as the last few years of the Obama administration, and took credit for low unemployment when none of his policies had anything to do with that.

    He proposed a travel ban on seven Muslim-majority countries, none of which have attacked the U.S. or produced citizens who have attacked the U.S. since the 70s, while leaving travel open from countries that have produced terrorists that have killed Americans. This ban had to be neutered beyond recognition to pass Constitutional muster.

    He’s proposed a pointless wall at a time of low immigration that he swears Mexico will pay for that is obviously never going to happen. In what way is that “pragmatic?”

    And then, the other day, this happened:

    ““Trudeau came to see me. He’s a good guy, Justin. He said, ‘No, no, we have no trade deficit with you, we have none. Donald, please,’ ” Trump said, mimicking Trudeau, according to audio of the private event in Missouri obtained by The Washington Post. “Nice guy, good-looking guy, comes in — ‘Donald, we have no trade deficit.’ He’s very proud because everybody else, you know, we’re getting killed.

    “… So, he’s proud. I said, ‘Wrong, Justin, you do.’ I didn’t even know. … I had no idea. I just said, ‘You’re wrong.’ You know why? Because we’re so stupid. … And I thought they were smart. I said, ‘You’re wrong, Justin.’ He said, ‘Nope, we have no trade deficit.’ I said, ‘Well, in that case, I feel differently,’ I said, ‘but I don’t believe it.’ I sent one of our guys out, his guy, my guy, they went out, I said, ‘Check, because I can’t believe it.’”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2018/03/14/in-fundraising-speech-trump-says-he-made-up-facts-in-meeting-with-justin-trudeau/

    So to make that clear–I know, it’s more incoherent than usual–the President of the United States admitted that he had no idea whether or not Canada has a trade deficit with the U.S., but that he lied to Trudeau and told him that we do anyway, for reasons he did not explain, and he thought the group of Republican donors he was addressing would just love that story.

    And maybe he was right.

    He isn’t a “pragmatist.” He is just a very dumb, uninformed liar.

    • More Common Sense says:

      Chris,

      You didn’t read the transcript did you. The article conveniently stops before the point Trump was making. The transcript continues immediately following:

      “Well sir you’re actually right. We have no deficit, but that doesn’t include energy and timber. But when you do we lose 17 billion dollars a year. ”

      I think 17 billion is a pretty good deficit.

      • Chris says:

        No, MCS, it’s Trump that is excluding services from his calculation.

        So, there was a $17 billion trade deficit in merchandise goods in 2017 between the United States and Canada, primarily because the United States imported about $77 billion worth of mineral products (primarily oil) from Canada — more than one-quarter of all Canadian exports — while exporting about $21 billion of mineral products back. There’s also a big gap in timber, since Canada possibly has more trees than people.

        But the overall trade figure is a surplus because the deficit in goods is wiped out by a big surplus in trade in services.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/03/15/heres-why-trump-keeps-saying-wrongly-the-u-s-has-a-trade-deficit-with-canada/?nid&utm_term=.d4ba55644cda

        And that does nothing to explain why he said he didn’t know whether or not we had a deficit or not when he originally told Trudeau! Is your argument that it’s OK that Trump initially made up facts because those facts later turned out to be true (even though they didn’t)?

        What else you got?

      • Pie Guevara says:

        More Common Sense: Piss thinks he has a command of trade issues and stats but this is just the usual excrement from Piss. A false narrative and tapestry of lies based on a few “facts.” (I use that word somewhat facetiously, Piss wouldn’t know a fact if it jumped up and slapped him in the face, he just picks and chooses stuff others say that seem to support his views and agenda. In this he is a wholly political animal with nothing, really, valid to share on trade issues nor of any value. )

        Of course, trade in the real world is much more complex than Piss could ever imagine. Did you ever read his treatise on banking? The poor fool doesn’t have a clue about how even the most basic and simple financial instruments work. Chalk that up to what passes for education in California of which, he is now a proud part of. Sadly, Piss is no doubt churning out more of the same using the cookie cutter he was stamped out with.

        For instance, this article is quite revealing on some things about trade complexity and “stats” manipulation —

        The NAFTA numbers game: why trade deficit figures seldom agree
        The U.S.-Canada trade balance is a hard number to nail down – a task made harder by bad-faith accounting

        http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-numbers-game-trade-1.4579792

      • Pie Guevara says:

        This too on Canada/US trade and NAFTA, is interesting —

        “Whichever data is used, the deficit (or surplus) is still relatively small compared to total trade between the two countries — between 1 and 2 percent.

        And that’s a big change from the past when the trade balance was clearly in Canada’s favor, no matter which methodology was used. The C$18.8 billion surplus estimated by Statistics Canada for 2016 is the smallest since 1994, the year Nafta came into effect. Since then, Canada’s cumulative surpluses have totaled C$1.2 trillion, the Statistics Canada figures show.”

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-12/trump-may-actually-be-right-about-the-trade-deficit-with-canada

        Awww, heck, a puny $1.2 trillion (Canadian dollars) cumulative surplus for Canada since NAFTA began? Chicken feed, right Piss?

    • Tina says:

      U.S. Trade Deficit by Country, with Current Statistics and Issues”>The Balance, “U.S. Trade Deficit by Country, with Current Statistics and Issues”

      The United States has the world’s largest trade deficit. It’s been that way since 1975. The deficit in goods and services was $566 billion in 2017. Imports were $2.895 trillion and exports were only $2.329 trillion. … Canada – $582 billion traded with an $18 billion deficit.

      Census.gov is in agreement.

      He said, ‘Nope, we have no trade deficit.’ I said, ‘Well, in that case, I feel differently,’ I said, ‘but I don’t believe it.’

      Perhaps, Trump is more of a gentleman than you think, Chris, and that’s why the conversation went the way it did.

  4. More Common Sense says:

    Very interesting comments. I tend to agree. Can you provide the source?

    Just one other comment.. There is a statement in the article that bothers me.

    “Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Marco Rubio are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the bankers, corporations, and big dollar donors funding their campaigns. Bush can deny it, but common sense tells anyone willing to face facts is that people don’t give tens of millions without expecting something in return”

    First, I’m not defending Bush, Kasich, or Rubio in my following comments. The idea that someone that makes a large donation is expecting something in return is a reasonable conclusion. However, that in itself is not an indicator of corruption . The assumption that a large donation means a politician is in the contributors pocket is not necessarily true. A contributor can make a large contribution to a politicians campaign simple because they agree with the politicians platform. What they are expecting in return is the politician will implement the platform and that will match how the contributor would like to see things done. That does not mean the politician is in the contributors pocket. If the politician compromises his or her politics and does something that is contradictory to their stated platform and goes against their beliefs simply because of the donation THEN it would be correct to say they are in the contributors “pocket”.

    I believe there are politicians that match both situations. It is unfair and unreasonable for a politician that receives large donations for doing what they believe in to be considered corrupt. Also it is unfair to consider a contributor corrupt simply because they make a large donation. They may be making the contribution simply to help the politician elected to insure the country follows the platform stated by the politician.

    • Peggy says:

      MCS, The email I received had the following paragraph attributing the article to Charles Krauthammer. I wasn’t able to verify he actually wrote it himself, but did find the below post/link which did. Note sure if he did or didn’t but thought it was worth sharing.

      ——-
      “Charles Krauthammer’s interesting take on Mr. Trump

      To my friends “of a different persuasion” I’m not trying to sell anything or anyone, but I do feel this is an interesting take on our very controversial president who I truly believe is not Republican or Democrat. ”

      http://community.coastalcourier.com/blogs/detail/21007/

    • Tina says:

      More Common sense I agree completely.

      Other points to be made:
      1) Large amounts of money don’t always determine outcomes. Jeb Bush had a lot of high profile big donors backing him and it didn’t help his prospects at all. 2) An elected politician is only one person in a sea of other people, party pressures, and groups of long association so the possibility of being effective in terms of platform is quite challenging.

      The Democrat Party members vote nearly in lock step according to decisions made by the party leadership.

      Republican members form coalitions but are also free thinkers…they have more difficulty getting things done.

      I would prefer the whole of Congress were free thinkers.

      We voters are challenged greatly to determine who’s who.

  5. Tina says:

    Jack and Peggy this is a great profile. I agree Trump is a problem solver. I have one bone to pick other than that made by MCS. It involves the following paragraphs:

    Viewing problems from a Liberal perspective has resulted in the creation of more problems, more entitlement programs, more victims, more government, more political correctness, and more attacks on the working class in all economic strata.

    No “spending” or “globalism?” Why not? Democrats are the party of big government (spending) and open borders (philosophy of globalists).

    Viewing things according to the so-called Republican conservative perspective has brought continued spending and globalism to the detriment of American interests and well being, denial of what the real problems are, weak, ineffective, milquetoast, leadership that amounts to Barney Fife Deputy Sheriff, appeasement oriented and afraid of its own shadow. In brief, it has brought liberal ideology with a pachyderm as a mascot juxtaposed to the ass of the Democrat Party.

    I don’t deny that Republicans have been ineffective. But it has been Democrats that pushed for the programs that add yearly to our growing debt.

    Social Security was introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) in 1935. See here.

    Lyndon Johnson got Medicare passed into law in 1965.

    Obamacare, if it doesn;t completely collapse, will add another large underfunded entitlement that contributes to the debt.

    Republicans have proposed market based reforms to these programs many tmes through the years but have been defeated in their attempts becasue they lacked sufficient backing by the people. Democrats demagogue the issue every time with outrageous claims like, “Republicans want to throw Granny off the cliff.” The people remain ignorant and misinformed and attitudinally incapable of seeing the benefits of the reforms or the dire need to fix the problem. Many of our leaders are not in “denial of what the real problems are.” They just have insufficient support.

    Newt Gingrich was the last Republican to make major reforms and he did it with the support of Bill Clinton, a Democrat. But the Democrats have moved to the extreme left now and in the process have created so much division and contention that it’s impossible to have a reasonable discussion much less arrive at a workable conclusion.

    The only way out of this mess is education of the masses (long term), exposing corruption and lies, good candidates, and strong participation at the polls to elect those who are problem solvers…Trump is a good start.

  6. JB says:

    Jack Lee… I thought that name was familiar. Thanks for the splendid Air Museum tour this afternoon. And thanks for this blog. There are lots of interesting comments, exchanges, and arguments here!

  7. Post Scripts says:

    JB, I’m glad you stopped by and I am glad you enjoyed our museum, it was our pleasure to host you! I have to say, being a volunteer out there is one of the best parts my week. I love all that history!

    Back at PS, we do our share of history too. We also like to provide a podium for lively discussions on a wide range of topics. We want this place to fun too!

    We encourage debate, free speech and new ideas. Those on the left get to share the same space as those on the right, we want everyone to have say. We think that is important.

    Come back and see us JB! The door here is always open. And the museum, well, that’s only 10 – 3 PM, Thurs-Sun.

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    Piss Chris’ honeymoon must be over. He’s back pissing on Trump and Post Scripts. Yeah, we get it Piss, you don’t like Trump and enjoy pissing on Jack and Tina. Nothing changes. Still the same Piss. The mind reading Piss who knows what Trump thinks and still depends on the Washington Post to get his marching orders. No bias there! Sheesh, what a jerk. No True Scotsman would ever be such a jerk. Oh wait …

    • Tina says:

      Pie I appreciate having you back at Post Scripts. I always enjoy reading your comments.

      I know our inclusive discussions can push buttons and create frustration, I get it. But I must insist that our posters contribute with at least a modicum of respect for others. In that vein, I would appreciate it if you would please address Chris by his name. As Jack wrote yesterday to a possible newcomer:

      …We also like to provide a podium for lively discussions on a wide range of topics. We want this place to fun too! … We encourage debate, free speech and new ideas. Those on the left get to share the same space as those on the right, we want everyone to have say. We think that is important.

      We want our discussions to be lively and we do think it’s important that everyone has a voice…to accomplish our free speech goal, we need your support.

  9. Tina says:

    Libby: “…an ally that does not resort to scatology?”

    Not at the moment. The man is a NYer that fights back. He succeeds. He loves this country and ALL of it’s people. He wants to rid our country of cheaters and criminals. He wants us to prosper.

    Your party has gotten away with falsely labeling Trump, Republicans and Tea Party people as racists, misogynists, homophobes, and Nazi’s. You sometimes do it with syrup in your nasty hateful little mouths but you do it constantly and it’s a damn lie!

    Potty mouth can come dressed up in pearls but it’s still potty mouth and phony as hell.

    Vice President Joe Biden – “(Romney) is going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street,” …“He is going to put y’all back in chains.”

    Also: “This is a big f-n big deal”

    Rep. Charlie Rangel (D – NY) – “It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police.”

    DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz – “I don’t see any swastikas or any pictures of the President in black face or burned in effigy here. The difference between the way we express our First Amendment rights and the way I’ve seen Tea Party extremists—Republican Tea Party extremists—express their right is dramatically different.”

    Rep. Alan Grayson (D – FL) – “If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die quickly. That’s right, the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”

    Rep. Charlie Rangel (D – NY) – “What is happening is sabotage. Terrorists couldn’t do a better job than the Republicans are doing.”

    Failed Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D-NY) “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said to applause and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

    More really bad language (XXX) examples on Hillary, the other choice in the last election, here.

    I’m sorry but I just can’t take your accusations and complaints about Trump seriously.

  10. Pie Guevara says:

    Both Libby and Chris (sans the perfectly appropriate P) don’t get it. Well, they may, but hypocritically pretend they don’t. Or maybe they are just that damn oblivious and stupid. Heck, anyone’s guess is as good as mine.

    This is not about scatology, but the scat these two constantly toss about. Both Libby and Chris have long engaged what amounts to no more than more than pissing contests in these pages. Pissing on anyone who does noes not conform to their narrow, bigoted, brain-dead world views. But when they piss, it is pure gold, right? Certainly Libby and Chris think so.

    This is what the left thinks passes for debate in Chris and Libby’s world. Of course, if I happen to piss back in the process and am explicit about it, Libby and Chris whine like elementary school third graders.

    In deference to Tina and Jack, I will refrain from spelling Chris with the “P” that so well defines him. Here to forward Chris may assume that every time I mention him the “Ch” is pronounced “P.” As for Libby, run along and go Chris in the wind.

    • Pie Guevara says:

      Correction: the “Chr” is pronounced “P.”

      With apologies to Ridley Scott, Hampton Fancher and David Peoples.

      • Libby says:

        Kindergarden code … just what this blog needs …

        Pie … you ever deign to argue, like with facts” … rather than “piss” with “piss,” I may just fall down dead of the shock.

        • Pie Guevara says:

          Too funny. Since when have you ever made a factual statement?

        • Pie Guevara says:

          Addendum:

          Libby, please do fall down dead of shock. At your earliest possible convenience.

          And by the way, the way you “argue” is in no way different from the way I have chosen to satirize your “arguments” you demented, oblivious political rodent.

          It is simply more honest and upfront.

          If you are bright enough to figure this out (and clearly you and Chris are not) I don’t actually argue with either of you. I merely reflect you in a different style as an analytical mechanism to tweak your esquus africanus asinus mentality.

          Rodents and asses perfectly describe the DemocRatic party and you two.

    • Tina says:

      Thank you Pie.

  11. Libby says:

    They are not only my accusations, Tina. Trump is in panic mode because Mueller is getting to the meaty bits. The theory goes … that The Donald has been on the Russian payroll since his fourth (or was it fifth?) bankruptcy, when the global banking community decided that he had lost his share of the planetary capital … and that the Pooty Cabal has been the chief funding source for his enterprises ever since.

    I mean, it’s practically common knowledge.

    The thing is, The Donald is in no danger of being declared a Russian agent and deported. It ain’t nothin’ like that. It’s just Pooty making mischief, throttling what’s left of any American Public Cultural Decency, and undermining our democracy.

    I just wish that you and Peggy and Pie weren’t such easy marks.

    • Peggy says:

      Libs we aren’t easy marks, because we believe in individual thought and not group think. It’s your party that has a long history of behaving like sheep when your shepherds control your every move. Voting against tax cuts that will let people keep more of their OWN money and sitting on their butts instead of standing and applauding the lowest Black and Hispanic unemployment in decades and ever recorded.

      Republicans dating back to Lincoln question and challenge the status quo instead of accepting with blind faith what our leaders say. Mueller is just the latest example of you and your party not doing your due diligent. The man is dirty and his past is deplorable with the anthrax and Boston mod investigations.

      See you on the other side of November 2018 and 2020.

      From HuffPost:

      No, Robert Mueller And James Comey Aren’t Heroes:
      “The former FBI directors have acceded to numerous wrongful abuses of power in the post-9/11 era.”
      https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/conflicts-of-interest-and-ethics-robert-mueller-and_us_5936a148e4b033940169cdc8

  12. Libby says:

    I know that I am frequently insufficiently explicit for this group. I expect people to make connections that are not all that clear. In my post, I suggest that Trump has been a pawn of Russian interests for near 20 years, and encouraged to launch “cultural” ventures like “The Apprentice.” Did you enjoy The Apprentice, Peggy? I’ll bet you did.

    And if you did, that would make you an easy mark. If you didn’t, well good for you, but where the “Party of Lincoln” comes into this, I’ll be damned if I know, except that it certainly encourages the debasing of the electorate … for twenty years finding The Donald so usefully entertaining.

    We all think he’s a jackass.

    • Peggy says:

      Well, good for me Libs. I didn’t watch the Apprentice. Nor did I watch the Survivor. But, millions of people did and per your elitist attitude I’ll bet you feel good about yourself by putting them all down.

      “We all think he’s a jackass.” Really?! Try telling that to the 65 million people who did vote for him. Amongst them were a whole bunch of Democrats that wouldn’t vote for Hillary and couldn’t vote for Bernie.

      When you do attempt to make a point, try not being so hyperbolic. You might be a little more believable if you didn’t. Not much, but a little. The general rule is absolutes, like never, all and always, are always wrong. Lying to people is not a convincing argument to get most people to believe anything you have to say.

      Enjoy the Bachelor. I’m pretty sure it’s one of your fav shows. LOL

    • Tina says:

      “I expect people to make connections that are not all that clear.”

      Do you do that purposely or unconsciously?

      “I suggest that Trump has been a pawn of Russian interests for near 20 years”

      Based on what evidence of such?

      “…and encouraged to launch “cultural” ventures like “The Apprentice.”

      I didn’t watch The Apprentice either so I looked to Wikipedia for a glimmer into the show’s premise:

      The Apprentice was created by British-born American television producer Mark Burnett. Billed as “The Ultimate Job Interview”, the show features fourteen to eighteen business people who compete over the course of a season, with usually one contestant eliminated per episode. Contestants are split into two “corporations” (teams), with one member from each volunteering as a project manager on each new task. The corporations complete business-related tasks such as selling products, raising money for charity, or creating an advertising campaign, with one corporation selected as the winner based on objective measures and subjective opinions of the host and his advisors who monitor the teams’ performance on tasks. The losing corporation attends a boardroom meeting with the show’s host and their advisors to break down why they lost and determine who contributed the least to the team. Episodes ended with the host eliminating one contestant from the competition, with the words “You’re fired!” … Seven of the show’s seasons featured aspiring, but otherwise unknown, businesspersons who would vie for the show’s prize, a one-year $250,000 starting contract to run one of Donald Trump’s companies. ”

      Although it was featured as “reality” TV, the show hardly fits the “cultural” label you attached to it. This show wasn’t “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” or “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo” which would fit your description…and have been likely created by leftists in the industry.

      Instead it featured aspiring business people who hoped to actually learn something and, if successful, be rewarded for their accomplishment.

      Your party has done plenty through the years to “debase the electorate,” Libby: Divisive race baiting politics, divisive class and gender warfare, taking up the scurrilous rules for political engagement spelled out in “Rules for Radicals, using propaganda in our public schools to shape young minds, creating ridiculous closed speech rules on college campuses…it goes on and on. Your party keeps people (and students) in the dark, feeds them BS, and uses bribery tactics and deceit to gain political power. Your party represents the use of cultural and social abuses as a means to power…abuses that our nation has not witnessed since the days following the Democrat founding of the Ku Klux Klan!

  13. Peggy says:

    Mueller update from Sara Carter.

    Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissmann, the FBI and the Mob:

    “Mueller and Weissmann involved in the two biggest scandals in FBI history

    Special Counsel Robert Mueller III and lead attorney in the Special Counsel’s Office Andrew Weissmann have been connected to one another throughout most of their careers, and both men moved quickly to the top tackling major crime syndicates and white-collar crime.

    Ironically, both men were also connected in two of the biggest corruption investigations in FBI history. But rarely are Weissmann and Mueller’s past cases discussed in the media. Their past is relevant because it gives a roadmap to the future — now that these two longtime colleagues are charged with one of the most controversial investigations into a president in recent history.

    “The integrity of the “investigation” and of the “investigators” must be a paramount priority in our criminal justice system at all times,” said David Schoen, a civil rights and defense attorney, who has been outspoken on the special counsel investigation. “Certainly this fundamental guiding principle must be followed when it comes to an investigation of the duly elected President of the United States. The outcome potentially affects every one of us in very real terms…There were many alternatives to Mr. Mueller and his team and all of their very troubling baggage.”

    continued…
    https://saraacarter.com/robert-mueller-andrew-weissmann-the-fbi-and-the-mob/

    • Tina says:

      Good article by Frank Gaffney at Breitbart too Peggy from last year:

      Gaffney said the current news environment provided a “target-rich environment” for punditry, but was regrettably “hard on the country.”

      “I particularly am thinking of this dossier business and the attacks on Donald Trump that have been relentlessly pursued,” he said. “Interestingly enough, with the help – in some cases more than just help, the active participation – of some people who have prominently featured in an actual case of Russian collusion at the highest levels of the United States government.” …

      … “There now seems to be, at long last, a willingness on the part of congressional Republicans – amazingly! – to conduct the kinds of investigations into this actual saga of collusion by Hillary Clinton, by Bill Clinton, apparently by the Democratic National Committee – and, by the way, by people like Robert Mueller, and James Comey, and Andrew McCabe, and Rod Rosenstein, and Eric Holder.”

      “These are people who have been prominently featured, either in condemning Donald Trump for the putative collusion of members of his campaign with the Russians, or are actively involved in the investigation thereof,” Gaffney explained. “The trouble is, I don’t see how a one of these people, if they’re not actually going to be subject to criminal prosecution – and I say that advisedly – at the very least are now completely incapable of performing an independent and honest investigation into these so-called allegations against Donald Trump.”

      And Alan Dershowitz over at The Hill, “Trump is right: The special counsel should never have been appointed”

      • Peggy says:

        Here’s another good article by Trump’s new attorney.

        The Politicization of the FBI:
        Joseph E. diGenova
        Former U.S. Attorney

        “Over the past year, facts have emerged that suggest there was a plot by high-ranking FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials in the Obama administration, acting under color of law, to exonerate Hillary Clinton of federal crimes and then, if she lost the election, to frame Donald Trump and his campaign for colluding with Russia to steal the presidency. This conduct was not based on mere bias, as has been widely claimed, but rather on deeply felt animus toward Trump and his agenda.

        In the course of this plot, FBI Director James Comey, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI Deputy Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok, Strzok’s paramour and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and DOJ senior official Bruce Ohr—perhaps among others—compromised federal law enforcement to such an extent that the American public is losing trust. A recent CBS News poll finds 48 percent of Americans believe that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia collusion probe is “politically motivated,” a stunning conclusion. And 63 percent of polled voters in a Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll believe that the FBI withheld vital information from Congress about the Clinton and Russia collusion investigations.”

        continued…
        https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-politicization-of-the-fbi/

        Remember this?

        The Real Andrew McCabe:

        “As Robyn Gritz found out, he’s not a gentleman.

        In April 2015, National Public Radio reported on the case of former FBI Special Agent Robyn Gritz who had been forced out of the bureau after she “got crosswise with her supervisors.”

        https://spectator.org/the-real-andrew-mccabe/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *