FLVOL_79
My insider > Your insider
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2011
- Messages
- 46,684
- Likes
- 68,260
What you are not factoring into the equation is how negative Trump is himself. He spends the majority of his time either in his speeches or on twitter: attacking other American citizens, attacking the Mueller investigation, attacking the press, attacking our allies, attacking former Presidents, attacking the NFL, attacking free trade, attacking Democrats, attacking Republicans, attacking Independents, attacking his own Attorney General... His message is rarely positive even though there are positive things to talk about. He spends much more time attacking the press and Robert Mueller's investigation than he does discussing the economy. That is a fact. That type of aggression will usually be met with hostility from the press corps. Now, to be honest, most Republican Presidents will be met with about 60-70% negative coverage by the national news media anyway. Trump's negative coverage is exacerbated by his own negative rhetoric - on pretty much everything.
Were you also worried about what BHO was doing to erode civility and divide our nation?
I certainly would have been worried if he had behaved like trump. I'm an equal opportunist when it comes to dumbassery. I wasn't an fan of all of Obama's policies, but at least he conducted himself with dignity and didn't represent an existential threat to the US (to those of us who aren't afraid of black people).
A few things.
I dont think the President should be addressing issues related to private citizens. That goes for Trump, Obama, etc. All that does is play into the hands of the media who are attempting to manipulate skulls full of mushy brains.
While the attacks on Trumps family are stupid and shows how unhinged and psychotic democrats are this isn't the first time his has happened. Bush and Obama got luck but I do remember hearing right wing media dogging out Chelsea Clinton when she was a kid. Yeah they were right that she was a hideous hose beast but she was just a kid and they shouldn't have said that stuff on air or in print.
Trump is trolling the left and his "enemies". Should he be? No. Grown ass men shouldnt be using Twitter. Old people shouldnt be using social media at all. Trump craves attention, good or bad. Twitter is he mechanism to constantly generate that attention. Almost all of his negative press has been created by him and Twitter. Unless he is legitimately insane (could be) he is the greatest troll of all time and is using Twitter to manipulate the media as some sort of smokescreen. For what? I have no idea.
And complaining about the "integrity and classiness" of the Presidential position, GTFO. We had presidents send hundreds of thousands of their citizens to death. We have had a President who dropped not one but two nuclear bombs on CIVILIANS...on f##king cities. We had presidents set up legitimate concentration camps for their own citizens. We had Presidents forcefully remove people from their ancestral lands and make them go on a death march and literally destroy their entire culture. And in the biggest irony of all we have had democrat presidents forcefully draft its own citizens into fighting a war against communism only to see their own party become communists a few decades later.
What you are not factoring into the equation is how negative Trump is himself. He spends the majority of his time either in his speeches or on twitter: attacking other American citizens, attacking the Mueller investigation, attacking the press, attacking our allies, attacking former Presidents, attacking the NFL, attacking free trade, attacking Democrats, attacking Republicans, attacking Independents, attacking his own Attorney General... His message is rarely positive even though there are positive things to talk about. He spends much more time attacking the press and Robert Mueller's investigation than he does discussing the economy. That is a fact. That type of aggression will usually be met with hostility from the press corps. Now, to be honest, most Republican Presidents will be met with about 60-70% negative coverage by the national news media anyway. Trump's negative coverage is exacerbated by his own negative rhetoric - on pretty much everything.
Exactly. A mostly negative message will be covered in a mostly negative fashion.Spot on. Trump started his presidential campaign by denigrating latinos, continued it with name calling of other republican contenders and telling us how BAD America is (patriotic, huh?), and spews attacks and untruths literally almost every single day.
How do you cover that in a "positive" way?
I would bet that less than 10% of trump's energy is used in a positive fashion... so 90% or so negative coverage actually makes perfect sense.
Can't argue with any of that.What you are not factoring into the equation is how negative Trump is himself. He spends the majority of his time either in his speeches or on twitter: attacking other American citizens, attacking the Mueller investigation, attacking the press, attacking our allies, attacking former Presidents, attacking the NFL, attacking free trade, attacking Democrats, attacking Republicans, attacking Independents, attacking his own Attorney General... His message is rarely positive even though there are positive things to talk about. He spends much more time attacking the press and Robert Mueller's investigation than he does discussing the economy. That is a fact. That type of aggression will usually be met with hostility from the press corps. Now, to be honest, most Republican Presidents will be met with about 60-70% negative coverage by the national news media anyway. Trump's negative coverage is exacerbated by his own negative rhetoric - on pretty much everything.
Calling a spade a spade is NOT tantamount to fear.
What, exactly, has Trump done that threatens the republic as we know it?
It's a good day. The country is in great hands with our new President. Relax and enjoy.How about calling for the imprisonment of a political rival? That's banana republic stuff.
Calling out dissenting opinions as being "fake news"? Are we not allowed to disagree?
Attacking the free press? Straight from dictator 101 playbook.
Attacking his appointees, including his attorney general. Authoritarianism.
Attacking immigrants as thieves and rapists (your parents were immigrants too, you know). Xenophobic.
Not recognizing the consensus opinions of his national security advisors. Buffoonery-in-chief.
Denigrating law enforcement when it suits him, notably the FBI. Very dangerous.
Blasting the special counsel and rule of law. He's above the above in his mind.
Is that enough of a start?
You forgot the Hitler comparisons.How about calling for the imprisonment of a political rival? That's banana republic stuff.
Calling out dissenting opinions as being "fake news"? Are we not allowed to disagree?
Attacking the free press? Straight from dictator 101 playbook.
Attacking his appointees, including his attorney general. Authoritarianism.
Attacking immigrants as thieves and rapists (your parents were immigrants too, you know). Xenophobic.
Not recognizing the consensus opinions of his national security advisors. Buffoonery-in-chief.
Denigrating law enforcement when it suits him, notably the FBI. Very dangerous.
Blasting the special counsel and rule of law. He's above the above in his mind.
Is that enough of a start?