So Trump is oblivious to the disdain and outright hatred of him by the media and the shrinking 10% of crybaby liberal sore losers?
Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
- Status
The GOP is certainly not shafting the middle and lower class. Where do you and Rusha get your ideas? At least I can admit when democrats do something right and good for America. Your support of that criminal loon Hillary and her rapist husband say it all. Hypocrite.It's a metal prison tray, it made a statement I agreed with about the family dynastic and potentially indictable situation that's a reality for this administration, and in that light I thought the tone was appropriate and measured. So yes, I liked the tone. The writer didn't call any Ivanka any names, certainly didn't treat her the way I've seen Michelle Obama treated.
So I'm not going to go any farther down this road with you, kmo. Maybe if more people had questioned the tone at TOL more often over the years, asking whether I liked the tone it would be a helpful question. But most people don't question the tone here, they're either handing out the "truth smack" or toughening up against the "truth smack." Or leaving the forum because they're not into "truth smack."
Ivanka isn't some damsel in distress, she grew up and has lived her whole life with every creature comfort it was possible to have. This was her bed when she was a little girl:
It's an illusion that Trump plays on, that he really has anything in common with the average American, and that translates to Ivanka as well. Trump plays on the perception that he, a billionaire, really cares about the people of this country, when all he really seems interested in is tweeting snark and playing golf and eating hamburgers at one of his golf clubs, while the GOP establishment works to shaft the middle and lower class.
What the base shares with Trump, and they've admitted it and it's been admitted on this forum, is that he "truth smacks" just the way they do. In that, Trump and his base really are simpatico. That's part of the reason we're on a race to the bottom politically because the acceptable behavior for a president keeps getting lowered and normalized, lowered and normalized. People will always find a way to speak truth to power though, and that's going to keep happening, even if the tone doesn't always meet our expectations.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Actually, no. How unfortunate to see your personal animosity cloud your judgment. I have no desire to be wealthy. I'm thankful for what I have and content to be where I'm at. Consumerism doesn't interest me.
I'm making an observation about the billionaires in the White House and how they connect with the average American and with their base. Feel free to address that if you'd like.
He connects great, that's why he won. Better than Obama and Hillary for sure. Are you going to rip on Martha Stewart for showing how to decorate and entertain? Four years of whining and posting everything negative you can find about Trump might help you overcome your hurt liberal feelings but it won't do anything to stop Trump. You're a voice crying in the wilderness.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Actually yes.
I do not have any personal animosity towards you at all. I'm sorry you think I hate you....I really don't.
And that is great...
And that is great too.
There hasn't been a President in the White House connecting with the average American for over 100 years now. Republican nor Democrat. So why even bring that up?
P.S. My post there didn't have you in mind at all...it was just a general thought I had after seeing Jgardens post.
anna is the victim
Warfare, maybe. But then, a lot of people who will be served by his actions don't think any better of him than those who are being used by him to promote the ruling class interest.
So maybe Trump really is uniting many disparate elements of the public. :think: Some by a growing sense of desperation and others in their general disdain.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Your post followed directly behind mine. Correlation isn't causation, but it's still correlation.
It's the conversation surrounding the giant clam shell Ivanka is suggesting for the American table, and how tone-deaf it was to a lot of people.
Having said that, it might surprise you that I agree with you on a certain level. It's all but impossible now to be elected without enormous, often hidden wealth behind the candidate. In fact it might concern you that I agree with you on more than a few things politically. At any rate, nothing will change until we move out of the two-party system.
Anyway, few to none here will agree with me when I say that Obama and Michelle connected with the American public at a really normal level. I could go into why that is, but it doesn't seem worth it to try.
...Obama is currently seen more favorably in Alabama than Trump is. That's really something.
The only way for the tone to change is from the top. That will never happen because Trump is toxic. While I dislike the tone, it is necessary. .
I guess that's about as good of a non-response response as I'll get. As I said, I have seen no, nada, zip, zero, disdain from you for Hillary supporters, and she is far more corrupt than Trump. And just so you know.... I didn't vote for Trump. I just see all the hatred as pretty much being irrational. The never-trumpers hate him because of his moral foibles, and yet have allowed far more corrupt people than he is to remain in political power for decades. I'll give you an example. The biggest, most visible, Trump hater always calling for his impeachment, Maxine Waters, has been voted the most corrupt person in Congress multiple times, and yet is there anyone here who is calling for her resignation? She has done a bunch of very corrupt things, and yet where are the Democrats? Where is your indignation over her corruption? Where is your indignation over Uranium One? Massive corruption there. Treasonous corruption in my book. The Clinton Foundation got $143 million in donations from companies involved in the transfer of 20% of the US' uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton got $500,000 for a 20 minute speech to a bank involved in the transfer. These "donations" came directly after the deal went through. And nothing looks suspicious enough to be investigated? Give me a break.
You want to claim moral indignation against one side and not the other? You want to claim Trump is so bad, and yet ignore all the rest? I don't fully trust Trump, but I will acknowledge he has done some pretty good things for the little guy since he's been in office. So far he's been better than I expected him to be.
I just see all the hatred of Trump being hypocritical in the extreme when the Clinton's, after all they've done are still a major influence in the Democratic party, and a ton of Senators and Representatives in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, are corrupt beyond belief and nobody says boo about all of that.
I guess I just expect too much honesty out of people, but then the reason we have so much corruption is government is because voters just don't care about honesty. They just keep on voting in the same old corrupt people decade after decade.
Great post !!
That very well may be. I said he could have made such posts and I had missed them. All he had to say was that was so. He hasn't so far.
Well, it would make so much sense to blast President Hillary Clinton for un-Presidential behavior and the danger she continually poses on a daily basis towards America. I wonder why she hasn't been impeached. :think:
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/9696725/chart.png)
When you have the opportunity, I hope you'll address your mischaracterizations of Margaret Sanger's beliefs about abortion and infanticide.
WizardofOz
New member
Uranium one debunked
You'll have to explain the treasonous corruption to me.
| Clinton played little to no part in this approval process because as secretary of state, she headed an agency that was just one of many involved in the approval process — and even then, it was likely a lower-level staffer who handled the approval. The second is that the person who donated the largest amount of money to the Clinton Foundation, Frank Giustra, didn’t even benefit from the sale. That’s because he said he sold his stake in Uranium One three years before this deal — and more than a year before Clinton began serving as secretary of state. |
More
I think you ought to read the following article from a far right extremist newspaper called the New York Times. It debunks a lot of what you've said in your last two posts. But, why would a website as devoted to left-wing causes as Vox is say anything misleading about scandals involving left-wing politicians? Just couldn't happen, correct? You will see that the Times reports Giustra donations that happen while he is in the middle of all this, and they were in the 10s of millions of dollar donations. And Bill Clinton and Giustra were making trips together and multiple things were happening during that time that pushed the Uranium One deal ultimately forward. Oh, but couldn't be any corruption there. Right? It doesn't even have an appearance of evil. Right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
As to Margret Sanger, I have nothing to apologize for. I gave you my honest opinion based upon her close ties to organizations that have for many decades used deciet and deception as everyday tools to spread their agenda. You don't like that? That's too bad. Those are historical facts. And I trust no person's stated motivations for what they do who has close ties to those types of organizations. I'd be a fool to do that. And besides, I think everything Sanger worked towards was evil. Her life was devoted to evil as far as I'm concerned. I stand 100% opposed to everything she stood for.
I have a lot to say on the subject of abortion, but this isn't the thread to say it.
WizardofOz
New member
Your article is dated APRIL 23, 2015. I linked you a NY Times article from NOV. 14, 2017. It debunks everything you said in your last two posts.
| According to the New York Times, there is "no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation influenced the Uranium One deal". F.B.I. agents opened preliminary investigations into the Clinton Foundation in 2015 but the Justice Department concluded that there was no evidence to move forward with a case. According to Snopes, the timing of donations might have been questionable if Hillary Clinton had played a key role in approving the deal, but all evidence suggests that she did not and may in fact have had no role in approving the deal at all. |
You'll have to explain how this can somehow be construed as treasonous.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Just to be clear, you’re responding to me here, not WizardofOz.
I asked you to address your mischaracterization of Sanger. I didn’t ask for or expect an apology, but your assumption that I did seems symptomatic of the way you process information.
For the record, my previous posts to you showed that you spoke falsely about Sanger. She tried to prevent abortion, she abhorred it, and she didn’t promote infanticide. If you can’t see you painted her dishonestly, then I’ll consider everything else you have to say as suspect. No matter how many words you use.
- Status