Trump Admits Attacks Are “Not Presidential” But Pledges To Continue

I have often criticized President Donald Trump for personal attacks and insults against critics as well as the media as a whole. We have discussed how the name calling and abuse is unpresidential. Now, in his latest attack, Trump has admitted that his attacks are “not presidential” (including his most recent statements regarding MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch). However, he then pledged to continue such unpresidential statements because they work. I am not sure which is more disturbing: not recognizing unpresidential conduct or recognizing it but pledging to continue it. Principle often requires us to forego actions or comments that would be otherwise beneficial or satisfying.

The latest tirade was triggered by Deutsch objecting (as many have) to Trump using an interview during the D-Day commemorations to attack his political opponents like Nancy Pelosi. I was one of those disturbed by the interview during the solemn events surrounding the 75th anniversary. (Even stalwart Trump supporters like Rep. Pete King criticized Trump for the interview). Trump was representing the nation during these events and it should have been a time reserved for honoring our fallen from World War II.

Trump responded to Deutsch with a tweet stating

“Little @DonnyDeutsch, whose show, like his previous shoebiz tries, is a disaster, has been saying that I had been a friend of his. This is false.” He then added “He, & separately @ErinBurnett, used to BEG me to be on episodes of the Apprentice (both were bad), but that was it. Hardly knew him,..other than to know he was, and is, a total Loser. When he makes statements about me, they are made up, he knows nothing!”

Trump then added “I know it is not at all “Presidential” to hit back at the Corrupt Media, or people who work for the Corrupt Media, when they make false statements about me or the Trump Administration. Problem is, if you don’t hit back, people believe the Fake News is true. So we’ll hit back!”

First, there are in fact many surrogates for Trump who will “hit back.” However, that is not the point. Being presidential — like being principled — demanded that you sometimes take a course that it not to your advantage. It means not yielding to every temptation or fighting for every political advantage. I have previously objected to the bias shown by some in the media in reporting on Trump. However, that is not license to engage in petty and personal attacks. That is indeed the very test of “being presidential” rather than just “being president.”

One can accept every criticism made by Trump and still object to his making those criticisms as president. It is also fair from clear that these attacks are helping Trump. He has antagonized many voters who will be essential in the general election. Many voters do care about “being presidential” . . . even when you see the benefits of not being presidential.

172 thoughts on “Trump Admits Attacks Are “Not Presidential” But Pledges To Continue”

  1. OT: Morton Sobell died at 101 and ends an era. It took a long time for this red diaper baby to confess a number of years back to a crime denied and protested by the left. With him ends the lives of everyone known to be involved in one of the worst crimes against America. The left forever lessened the severity of the crimes in their minds or dismissed them all together over the years so they should think of that when the media and their handlers tell them how stupid the right is.

    https://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/history-ideas/2019/06/the-death-of-morton-sobell-and-the-end-of-the-rosenberg-affair/

    Those with an interest can look up the details above.

      1. You are welcome Kurtz. If you didn’t read https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273968/central-park-5-were-murderous-thugs-john-perazzo you might find it of historical interest before the movie comes out.

        I tried to post portions of it demonstrating the muderous activites of those who the left now are turning into heros. You might find reading the whole article of great interest. They did similar things to the Rosenbergs but not as successfully and they also did similar things with Senator McCarthy so his name is associated with things he never had anything to do with. He wasn’t a nice man but the actual facts behind his character demonstrate the opposite of what many assume to be true. Did you straighten out the meaning of cohanim? No criticism of you for I am impressed that you openly delve into information you aren’t sure of which to me is a good sign.

  2. I remember a quote from a book …. What’s Presidential? In New York you ask the Times here in Washington DC you ask me. it was a reporter for WaPo

    What’s Presidential? Preserving, Protecting, and Defending The Constitution of the United States of America. Which means most of those running have alreadhy proven they are unsuitable and incapable.

  3. He wasn’t hired to be Presidential whatever that means. He was hired to expose and destroy those who are Not Constitutional. Doing a good job so far. Keep that up and we’ll let the Sanitation Department clean up the mess.. Draining then Mopping the floor makes it easier to identify the dirty spots.

  4. TRUMPERS CAN USE THIS TEMPLATE TO COMMENT

    Boy, Turley is going weak at knees. He’s afraid President Trump said something dumb again. ..So what..! That’s why we love Trump. He says stupid things! Trump speaks for all of us. All us patriots sick of mainstream media.

    Libs don’t have the guts to say stupid things like Trump. They’re afraid of looking stupid. But Trump don’t scare like that. He’ll say any stupid thing cause he know he can. He knows we back him up. White Christians stick together. We watch Fox and get our story straight.

    Fox will say if Trump is getting too stupid. They ain’t said that yet. Fox says tough leaders look up to Trump. Putin likes Trump cause Trump says stupid things. Kim in North Korea respects Trump for all the stupid things. Now Mexico too.

    Liberal media talks about all the stupid things. But they don’t talk about Uranium One. They don’t say how Pelosi kills babies. All we hear is stupid things Trump said. Cause Trump is testing them. To see if they report just the stupid things!

    If Trump acted smart one day, liberal media wouldn’t tell us. They don’t want him looking smart. We don’t neither. Cause then Trump wouldn’t sound like us. We know what he mean. We know Trump saves babies and let us keep our guns.

    1. Yet despite the fake news and Congresses lack of support the President has done amazing things. He is Making America Great Again.

    2. L4D says–Excellent work, Mr. H. Once again, you’re really throwing shade on the rest of us old fuddy duddies. But that’s Okay. That’s why we love you, Mr. H. (It’s almost time for sipping lemonade while we’re sitting in your shade.) Bring it!

    3. The Current PH — go back and listen to the Trump/Hillary debates. Listen to what Trump said. Then reevaluate. The man may sound stupid to you. But listen to him again. He ain’t no fool. Truth.

      PS Remember this also: No flies landed on Trump’s face during a debate held in a sound proof television studio did they? Truth.

    4. The Current PH — question for you….has it ever been unsafe, literally physically unsafe, for you to admit who you voted for or who you support politically? Where you actually feared bodily harm, assault, or being somehow forced into an unsafe situation because of your political views?

      Because for some of us, it has literally become unsafe, right here in America, to declare support for Trump. And again, this is America? Who are the authoritarians? The fascists? Do tell us…

    5. “Libs don’t have the guts to say stupid things like Trump”.
      Peter is just being modest; between his HHHNN mission, Natacha’s rants, and other libs who comment here, we could never accuse them of not “having the guts to say something stupid”. 😏

  5. Professor Turley, you really need to pull up your big boy pants. If you had been subjected to the non-stop negative and often false reporting that the president has had to deal with for the last two years you would be on the floor of your office curled up in the fetal position.

    The president’s approval rating has been close to or higher than Obama’s approval ratings at the same time in his presidency. What do you suppose Trump’s ratings would be absent the constant assaults from the MSM? Actually, based on the tanking ratings at MSNBC and CNN, the phrase “main stream” clearly does not apply.

  6. This “being Presidential” complaint is mainly another diminution of the President’s ability to respond in kind to personal, petty attacks. The children of the left demand calm sophistication from the President, while consistently acting like lil’ bullies on the playground.

    Recall Jesus’ rumble in the Temple: He turned over the tables and ran them all out. “And (He) said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

    Was Jesus being “un-Savior-like?”

    I hope DJT runs them ALL out.

  7. Whether one is on the left or the right they will want to listen to the following words (video) which fit in well with today’s present topic.

    “https://www.prageru.com/video/who-does-the-media-most-want-to-silence/”

  8. “Now, in his latest attack, Trump has admitted that his attacks are “not presidential””

    Sometimes leaders have to act in ways that are not following the general rules for leaders. Moses cast the tablets from his hands and broke them for all to see. Moses and Trump both knew and know what they are doing. The left is creating the golden calf of socialism and is using all its strength casting doubt on anyone that wishes to protect America and its freedoms. Trump is trying to reverse that and with a media that only publicizes the President and frequently bans those agreeing with him the President is left with the added job of showing the American people the foolish ways of the left and the media that supports it.

  9. News Flash, you can call it FAKE if you want to, the President’s Administration is not the Federal Government, and the President doesn’t Govern, or make any decisions, in a republican form of Government!

  10. Mr. 1st amendment here will dedicate at least half of his posts to the deterioration of free speech throughout the world. But apparently JT doesn’t believe that natural right extends to everyone. That freedom we need so badly to protect every other right is a protected right for everyone not POTUS. It’s Orwellian on its face. All are equal, but some are less equal than others. Stop feigning shock over his communication style. The difference between him and most other politicians is his words don’t require translation. He’s a caveman with a club compared to the rest of the political class. That doesn’t make what he says wrong, it simply cuts out the middleman as it makes it’s way to the masses.

    1. “Stop feigning shock over his communication style. The difference between him and most other politicians is his words don’t require translation. ”

      Excellent!

    2. “Stop feigning shock over his communication style. The difference between him and most other politicians is his words don’t require translation.”

      C’mon Olly, How many times after Trump says something quite clear, do his surrogates have to come out and say what he “really meant” because his original words were disastrous? I’m waiting though to hear about how Mars is part of the moon? Trump says something and completely contradicts it later, sometimes in the same paragraph. He says things to get a rise out of people. He lies! He actually believes in very little so exactly what can you trust and believe in when he says something? The only way this works with 40% of the population (and Mitch McConnell) is that they’ve decided to live with whatever he says and does though they wouldn’t have accepted it from any other human.

      “… Mars, (of which the moon is a part).” – DJT

      1. The moon is a fake planet. Why do you think the astronauts who first walked on the moon have been silenced and do not speak about what they found?

      2. a strange remark

        however many of the theories for the Moon’s formation are indeed strange

        https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question38.html

        Question:
        Where did the Moon come from?

        Shuttle

        Answer:
        Any theory which explains the existence of the Moon must naturally explain the following facts:

        The Moon’s low density (3.3 g/cc) shows that it does not have a substantial iron core like the Earth does.
        Moon rocks contain few volatile substances (e.g. water), which implies extra baking of the lunar surface relative to that of Earth.
        The relative abundance of oxygen isotopes on Earth and on the Moon are identical, which suggests that the Earth and Moon formed at the same distance from the Sun.
        Various theories had been proposed for the formation of the Moon. Below these theories are listed along with the reasons they have since been discounted.

        The Fission Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the solar system. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came. This theory was thought possible since the Moon’s composition resembles that of the Earth’s mantle and a rapidly spinning Earth could have cast off the Moon from its outer layers. However, the present-day Earth-Moon system should contain “fossil evidence” of this rapid spin and it does not. Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.
        The Capture Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon was formed somewhere else in the solar system, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth. The Moon’s different chemical composition could be explained if it formed elsewhere in the solar system, however, capture into the Moon’s present orbit is very improbable. Something would have to slow it down by just the right amount at just the right time, and scientists are reluctant to believe in such “fine tuning”. Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.
        The Condensation Theory: This theory proposes that the Moon and the Earth condensed individually from the nebula that formed the solar system, with the Moon formed in orbit around the Earth. However, if the Moon formed in the vicinity of the Earth it should have nearly the same composition. Specifically, it should possess a significant iron core, and it does not. Also, this hypothesis does not have a natural explanation for the extra baking the lunar material has received.
        There is one theory which remains to be discussed, and it is widely accepted today.

        The Giant Impactor Theory (sometimes called The Ejected Ring Theory): This theory proposes that a planetesimal (or small planet) the size of Mars struck the Earth just after the formation of the solar system, ejecting large volumes of heated material from the outer layers of both objects. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually stuck together to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth. This theory can explain why the Moon is made mostly of rock and how the rock was excessively heated. Furthermore, we see evidence in many places in the solar system that such collisions were common late in the formative stages of the solar system. This theory is discussed further below.

        More About The Giant Impactor Theory
        In the mid-1970s, scientists proposed the giant impact scenario for the formation of the Moon. The idea was that an off-center impact of a roughly Mars-sized body with a young Earth could provide Earth with its fast initial spin, and eject enough debris into orbit to form the Moon. If the ejected material came primarily from the mantles of the Earth and the impactor, the lack of a sizeable lunar core was easily understood, and the energy of the impact could account for the extra heating of lunar material required by analysis of lunar rock samples obtained by the Apollo astronauts.

        For nearly a decade, the giant impact theory was not believed by most scientists. However, in 1984, a conference devoted to lunar origin prompted a critical comparison of the existing theories. The giant impact theory emerged from this conference with nearly consensus support by scientists, enhanced by new models of planet formation that suggested large impacts were actually quite common events in the late stages of terrestrial planet formation.

        The basic idea is this: about 4.45 billion years ago, a young planet Earth — a mere 50 million years old at the time and not the solid object we know today– experienced the largest impact event of its history. Another planetary body with roughly the mass of Mars had formed nearby with an orbit that placed it on a collision course with Earth. When young Earth and this rogue body collided, the energy involved was 100 million times larger than the much later event believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs. The early giant collision destroyed the rogue body, likely vaporized the upper layers of Earth’s mantle, and ejected large amounts of debris into Earth orbit. Our Moon formed from this debris.

      3. How many times after Trump says something quite clear, do his surrogates have to come out and say what he “really meant” because his original words were disastrous?

        Regardless of his communication style, he has millions of people that believe in what he actually does. And what he has done has been a disaster for his opponents. If it wasn’t, they’d be attacking that instead of his style.

      4. Enigma In Black said, “I’m waiting though to hear about how Mars is part of the moon?”

        L4D says–I can explain that. But I’m not sure that I should. I read about it from someone over at NASA. What they said was that “The Moon” is part of “The (Manned) Mission to Mars.” But they also said that Trump falsely created the impression that we didn’t need a “lunar base” to launch the “Manned Mission to Mars.” So, basically, Trump garbled the thing, anyway. He just didn’t garble it in exactly the way that his words literally conveyed.

        You know what, Enigma? You’re right. There is no explanation. (What was I thinking?) It’s NOT my job! (Make Allan explain it.)

  11. Turley: “Being presidential — like being principled — demanded that you sometimes take a course that it not to your advantage.”

    By that logic Trump is following Turley’s advice. His style is a different “course” that is not to his “advantage”. The establishment embraced style over substance for decades to our detriment.

  12. Any act by the President that is not Presidential is impeachable! So Trump has made the case for impeaching himself, the only problem is that the Impeacher’s, the States assembled in the House by their Proportion of the Population, have had their Suffrage usurped by Political Parties which cannot impeach or remove the President on a vote in the Senate due to conflicts of interests related to Party Affiliation in common or in opposition to the President, meaning every single representative and Senator would have to recuse Themselves from the impeachment proceedings.

    That alone should elucidate to you that we have a problem of Assembly because Congress is not an Assembly of the States and the States do not have the necessary Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus on any Legislative matter including impeachment!

    1. “Any act by the President that is not Presidential is impeachable!”

      One can charge a ham sandwi?ch for any crime but is that an indication of guilt?

      1. Impeachment is not a question of guilt or innocence, it’s a question of compliance and insubordination! If the States, as they are assembled as the Union in Congress, are not satisfied with how the President is perceived, or with the manner in which the President Executes The duties of the Presidency, they can immediately remove the President and replace him/her with a President more to their liking.

        The Federal Government is the State’s Government, and as such, the States choose the President, through their Representatives, the Electors, and they can remove the President through impeachment on a straight 2/3 Majority Vote, of the States through their Equal Suffrage in the Senate, at their pleasure!

        1. Don’t be silly. Why would anyone want to impeach and remove from office the greatest president this country has ever seen? Here’s another thought: when Trump leaves office, watch the cable news channels like MSNBC, CNN, etc all go down the drain. They need Trump and Trump-bashing to keep their viewers tuned in. We know they don’t bash Democrat presidents. They only bash the Republican Congress working in opposition to the great do-good Democrat president. Even the late night comdedy shows won’t bash Democrats. They only mock Republicans. So without Trump? It all goes back to a whole world of B.O.R.I.N.G. cable news and late night “comedy” show blabber. No Trump = not good for the news business. Fact.

                1. In your opinion….

                  Remember this my friend: Only truth is true and the truth is true for everyone.

                    1. Ask Barack Obama that question.

                      He swore to uphold it, but also told us that it is “just a piece of parchment” and that it is “out of date” and “deeply flawed” and that it is a “hindrance to progress in America” and that he would tear it up and rewrite it if he could!!!

                  1. obama said that? if so then he just said out loud what every government executive thinks deep down inside.

                    and he also just said what they basically teach in law school. the constitution is not sacred writ.

                    and even sacred writ is subject to “interpretation” etc and is for good reasons

                    the constitution is not a totem pole even though some people have set it up that way. doesn’t really help navigate the rough waters, in my mind.

        2. “Impeachment is not a question of guilt or innocence

          As I said Federalist, one can charge a ham sandwich with a crime. Some wish to be fools and use the impeachment process as a blunt tool. That only leads to further destruction of our government and the nation.

          All your words that followed the one’s I have quoted are a meaningles waste of time in this discussion.

          1. You don’t even understand the impeachment process, even after I explained it to you! Impeachment is not a political process, and doesn’t depend upon partisan consensus related to political parties.

            I don’t know about Andrew Johnson, but we have never used the impeachment process properly in the History of our Nation, especially during the 20th century!

            Congress is Supposed to be an Assembly of States, not Parties, and only the States have Suffrage in Congress to reach Majority Consensus in either Branch of the Congress.

            States, not Parties, States, Not Parties, …, and keep repeating that until you understand, which in your case may be the rest of your life!

            1. “You don’t even understand the impeachment process, even after I explained it to you!”

              Federalist, you seem unable to deal with anything outside of your own words. Your own verbosity prevents you from reading and understanding the conversation at hand. I’ll repeat a part of my response. Maybe repetition will help tilt you in the proper direction.

              “As I said Federalist, one can charge a ham sandwich with a crime. Some wish to be fools and use the impeachment process as a blunt tool. That only leads to further destruction of our government and the nation.”

                1. “Ignorance repeated is still ignorance!”

                  Yes, and we note that with you time and time again even with the verbosity and non responsive replies. It sounds like you have written your own book and no one has read it so you repeat paragraphs from it over and over again. That lets us know why no one has read it.

            2. The Reverend Fed-Pap said, “Congress is Supposed to be an Assembly of States, not Parties, and only the States have Suffrage in Congress . . .”

              L4D says–The Assembly of States [Congress] shall pass no laws infringing upon the right of the people to organize political parties in The States. Oh? But that’s not what it says! It says “the right of the people peacefully to assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievance.” That’s what is says.

              Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now what does it mean, your Reverend Fed-Pap? Could the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition their government for a redress of grievance mean the right of the people to organize political parties in The States?

  13. Recent “fake news” pointed out by Trump:

    Navy was asked by the WH to move the USS McCain

    Tens of thousands Londoners protested his visit.

    1. From the picture in the WSJ:
      “A tarp obscures the name of the USS John S. McCain ahead of President Trump’s visit to Japan.”

      Was that picture of the tarp taken at the site in Japan or was it taken elsewhere? Does anyone know for sure? There are claims that say no. I personally don’t know one way or the other.

      That is a problem. All too many of these claims have been wrong. The caged children blamed on Trump was actually filmed during the Obama years.

      Did the media give the impression that Trump was involved? Yes.
      Did they give the impression that the WH was involved? Yes
      Could the action have been taken by someone outside of the WH? Yes.

      Here we have much of the scenario where some of the statements may be true. Some contradict other statements so have to be false and some that are false.

      When truth and fiction are conflated one has to call the overall idea a lie. That is known as “fake” news. If the media doesn’t like the term they can specifically say what is true and prove it.

  14. As we all know: Trump is a racist, misogynist, homophobe, islamophobe, xenophobe, anti-Semitic white supremacist Nazi bigot and a Russian spy who wants dirty air, dirty water and wants to throw grandma off a cliff.

    And even though those rumors about cannibalism, bestiality and witchcraft at Trump Tower are largely unsubstantiated, investigators have so far been unable to prove definitively that those things didn’t happen, which, according to the new Justice Department guidelines unveiled by Robert Mueller last week, means that Trump is NOT not guilty.

    How would you react if, for the past 3 years, every time you turned on the TV, the radio, or opened a newspaper, there was someone proclaiming to the world that you were a traitor, guilty of treason and sedition, and making vicious personal attacks against you and your entire family, including your 10 year-old son? Would you just bend over and take it up the butt like a good little president?

    As Trump points out, his tactics may be ‘unpresidential’, whatever that means in the current climate, but they work. They are right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook.

    Professor Dershowitz is constantly saying the we shouldn’t criminalize political differences, but how about criminalizing actual criminal behavior? And, Professor Turley, doesn’t disturb you even a little bit that the news outlets you rely on have been lying to you for the past two years?

    1. Trump aint no Jesus, not gonna turn the other cheek. Loons act shocked when Trump does not take their crap, like gambling at Casa Blanca – “shocked!”

  15. Late 4 Reality and all the other loons got to realize that this here president is a counter-puncher. Bear baiting with cheap shots, lies, and witch hunts only provoke the bear. And then the loons blame the bear for ….acting like a bear. Little Bobby Muler’s feelings got hurt by Trump so he helped the mean girls by cherry pickling his own report at his no questions “press conference” -excluded the most important part about Zero coordination/conspiracy by Trump et al or any American with Russians. Even MSNBC is moon-walking away from this piece of Shiite.

    1. Little Bill Martin doesn’t notice that “the bear” is kicking over his own water dish while going after antagonists he met in 3rd grade, nor that he is – as “bears” go – an a.shole.

      1. Bill Martin proudly stands 6’5″ tall. And Anon again confirming he is on downward losing spiral as it relates to his resist-Trump default setting. He like many lefty loons have lost their Shiite over Trump and don’t even realize they are being played by that old orange fox. Trump goading you all and you playing right into his game – you don’t even realize it (so full of irrational anti-Trump default hate).

        1. Bill Martin,
          It’s not really a downward spiral. That’s one of the reasons that I re-posted JanF’s 2-24-2019 comments; to show that JanF/
          anon “came that way”.😉
          So there’s really no process that occurred over time.

    2. L4D says–You’ll be happy to know that there’s a new Grand Jury in The District of Columbia–thanks to the tireless efforts of he who would not be deterred, Robert Swan Mueller The Third. Ha-Ha!

      The new Grand Jury is hearing testimony from Roger Stone associate, Andrew Miller. Oddly enough, that same Grand jury is also investigating the Sovereign Investment Fund known as “The Mystery Appellant.” You really have to wonder exactly what Roger Stone’s accountant, Andrew Miller, and a foreign-owned bank (whose name has yet to be publicly disclosed) might have had to do with one another. Whatever it is, I’m guessing that it can’t be good. Mueller’s office famously reported that they had amassed terrabytes of voluminous and complicated data in their investigation of Stone and his associates.

      Remember: It’s never over until it’s over.

      1. Muler would not have handed-off Stone case – concluded “investigation”- and walked off into sunset if there were anything linking Stone persecution to Trump-Russia conspiracy. “Don’t stop believing, hold onto that feeling…”

        1. L4D says–Don’t take my word for it, Beak Guitar. This is what the lead prosecutor, Zia Faruqui told Chief Judge Beryl Howell at the hearing on the subpoena for Andrew Miller’s emails with Roger Stone:

          Faruqui: Your Honor, I can say with absolute certainty that the case is robust, ongoing; we are working within our office. The matter was transferred back in fact to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. We have met numerous times with agents. We have reviewed materials, and our plan is to go forward with our investigative steps. We are in constant communication with the special counsel’s office.

          It’s very different, I think, to the outside world; but, within the Government, theoretically we are one Government. One AUSA may leave, one prosecutor; but, when there is a case of this import, there is no reason that it would stop because a separate focused matter has been presented with a letter and report.

          [end excerpt]

          The case started out it The D. C. U. S. Attorney’s Office, was transferred to the Special Counsel’s Office, and then transferred back to DCUSAO after Barr put the kibosh on Mueller. This is The Dragon’s Tooth Case. And there’s nothing that Barr can do about it.

          1. Lake 4 Reality: since you have been wrong about everything up until now – should we now believe you might get this right? Muler dumped Stone persecution and went on with his life. Make no mistake, if there were any “there” there then Muler would have stuck with Stone case until the very end. During his “press conference” it became quite apparent/confirmed that Muler is no fan of Trump. No way Muler would walk away from putting real points on the board against Trump vs. some hurt-feelings bogus obstruction of non-crime old-man drivel.

      2. I think maybe she meant to say “Robert Swan Mueller, he who will not testify”.
        ( At least willingly; it remains to be seen if they’ll subpoena him, or use the threat of subpeona, to get him to testify).

        1. L4D says–The Report is Mueller’s testimony. Read The Report, already, for crying out loud. Mueller referred fourteen investigative matters to other U.S. Attorney’s Offices. The new Grand Jury investigation in The District of Columbia under Zia Faruqui combines the Roger Stone’s accountant, Andrew Miller, with the Sovereign Investment Fund known as The Mystery Appellant. That can’t be good.

          Stone was running voter suppression efforts throughout the 2016 campaign season. Ted Cruz was a major victim of Stone’s efforts in The Primaries. And the Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota were all marred by voter suppression efforts during the General Election of 2016. So the new Grand Jury investigation appears to be focused on from exactly whom and from where Stone and his accountant Miller got the money (a.k.a. Dark Money) to fund their voter suppression operations in the key battle-ground States that turned the Electoral College vote to Trump in 2016. Or not.

          Who is The Mystery Appellant? And from what country does The Mystery Appellant hail? Wouldn’t you like to know the answers to those questions?

          1. Whether L4B is “crying out loud” or not, Mueller did not make a determination on obstruction.
            He did not find compelling evidence of conspiracy with the Russians on the issue of election meddling.
            Mueller’s failure to present a conclusion one way or another on obstruction created a problem, in that he “left things hanging”.
            And none of the lame excuses for his failure to do so, especially on the heels of over 2 1/2 years of FBI/ OSC investigations, hold water.

  16. Late 4 Reality and all the other loons got to realize that this here president is a counter-puncher. Bear baiting with cheap shots, lies, and witch hunts only provoke the bear. And then the loons blame the bear for ….acting like a bear. Little Bobby Muler’s feelings got hurt by Trump so he helped the lefty mean girls by cherry pickling his own report at his no-questions “press conference” -excluded the most important part about Zero coordination/conspiracy by Trump et al or any American with Russians. Even MSNBC is moon-walking away from this piece of Shiite narrative.

    1. Above comments from Bill Martin who don’t hide behind “Anonymous” – Jon Turley machine designated message as Anonymous when it indeed is owned by Bill Martin.

  17. I often don’t like how President Trump speaks and could think of a million ways to say it more eloquently. BUT here’s the rub …. For the last 40 years, Democrats and liberals have been saying horrible things about Republicans and conservatives – and we’ve taken it, turned the other cheek. Check out Kimberly Strassel’s book The Intimidation Game and Kirstin Powers How the Left is Killing Free Speech.

    Remember the nasty smears on Paul Ryan, Bork, Clarence Thomas, Judge Kavanaugh, Sarah Palin, John McCain (before he died), Mitt Romney, George Bush 1 & 2 , and of course proclamation for years that Ronald Reagan was a vapid idiot. Not only is it a constant barrage of “-ists” – racists, misogynists, sexists (I’m a woman!), xenophobes but literally a claim that we are evil, mean and dumb, as if they actually have moral expertise. Then the liberal smears were repeated vociferously by the Press and re-inforced by the so-called media establishment and celebrity world in other ways (ie: SNL, TV, movies, etc).

    And look how liberals continued it with Pres. Trump and conservatives who served him – his whole family, his election team, and his new administration was proclaimed traitors (a firing squad offense), Sarah Sanders-Guiliani – Kirsten Neilsen- and so many more – have been ridiculed, and all conservatives vilified. Yet all of it was lies and smears.

    The Left has tried to delegitimize NOT just Pres. Trump – BUT ALL conservatives and Republicans. And it hasn’t been going on for 2 years but 40 years. Which has made many of us willing to take President Trump with all of his foibles (and even sometimes cheer him on from the peanut gallery) for his truth telling

      1. No sir. Have you checked out the Barack Hussein Obama cult of personality? Seen his Hollywood slobbering love fest of him and MichellO?
        Now THAT is a cult following. And a sickening one at that.

        1. A political party is a Faction, meaning they all are cults left, right, and center. And your constant squabbling over which was, or is, the more corrupt shows your level of indoctrination.

          Maybe you should stop drinking the Koolaid!

          1. No sir. The deification of Barack Hussein Obama is unique. His cult following elevated a “politician” (and his wife) into glorified pop culture superstar icon status. Perhaps because they hang with JayZ and Beyonce? Of course Barack Obama had everything to do with cultivating and maintaining that fabricated image for himself, with a lot of help from Hollywood and the media, as only Democrat politicians do.

            1. Just to add that Barack Hussein Obama was also a corrupt poltician who abused his power and the power of the gubmint to take down his opponents. And he lied about all of it. But we’re not supposed to talk about his corruption. Because Barack Obama was so “presidential” in his outer appearances. But behind the scenes? That’s a whole different story. Kind of like Hollywood, right?

              1. Politicians, no matter their stripe, don’t have any power in a republican Government to abuse! You can’t even separate your understanding of Governing systems from Party Affiliation and Control! Republican Government is not assembled by Party Affiliation, and Parties have no seats they can win, and Control is not granted to the Party which gains a Majority of the Seats through partisan elections.

                All composition, distribution of Power, and Suffrage to reach Majority Consensus is specified in a republican form of Government and is fixed unalterably and tied directly to the Population which is the only manner of changing, or redistributing, Power, and is based upon the migration and growth of the population which is tracked by the Census every 10 years.

                If you want a Party System, move to Europe, or another country which has that type of political system!

                1. “Politicians, no matter their stripe, don’t have any power in a republican Government to abuse!”

                  Right, so then why would the Democrats seek to take Trump out of office by impeachment instead of voting him out in the next election?

                  1. I’m sorry if you are suffering from CDD – Comprehension Deficit Disorder, but the Democrats can’t decide to impeach the President, and the Republicans can’t decide to not remove the President, and the President is selected by an indirect election process where The Electors form the Electorate and Vote by Ballot, on the People’s behalf, and the person who receives votes from a majority of the Electors, not a majority of the Electors votes, becomes the President, unless no person receives the required Majority, then in that case the States choose from the top 5 persons receiving Elector’s votes, top 3 under the 12th Amendment, 1 vote per State no matter how many representatives each State may be entitled to in Congress, and the person receiving a majority of the votes of the States becomes the President.

                    Only the States have the power to select and remove the President, not Parties! Tell me how that works in a Party Controlled System!

                    1. But but but!! …Hillary ‘the corrupt’ Clinton won the popular vote! She was the people’s choice! “Donald Trump is an illegitimate president,” they still scream!!

                      But but but….Stacey Abrams is the rightful governor of Georgia! Republicans STOLE the election from her! (Evidence? What’s that needed for when I can just say so?!) Abrams refuses to concede! And she calls on all Democrats who lose elections they “think” they should have won, to not concede !!!

                      Yes, THIS is the Democrat party of today. Why would anyone in their right mind put any of these nut jobs in power??

                    2. Reach into The recesses of your mind and get out of your partisan rancor long enough to understand that we do not hold proper elections in this country on any level, there is not one single legitimately elected person anywhere in our Country today!

                      I don’t care if they are Democrats or Republicans.

                      By the way, the popular election is not part of the Election Process for the President as prescribed in Article 2 Section 1 or the 12th Amendment of the Constitution, neither are Party Nominations or Party Tickets.

                      The States Select their Electors on a day determined by Congress, then the Electors Vote by Ballot in their Respective States, again on a date determined by Congress. The Electorate are the Electors, not the People registered to vote in their State’s!

                      The system is broken, that is the Problem!

    1. Poor you SBG. I’m a liberal Democrat, and you guys on the right have always been so welcoming, kind, and generous. When I’m really feeling down I just turn on Rush, or Laura, or Sean, or Mark, or that Weiner-Nation guy and feel the glow as they describe us and all we do for the country.

      By teh way, Trump delegitimizes himself and it’s almost daily.

      Haven’t you noticed? He’s a low life, grifter, jack ass!

      1. Anon resorting to name-calling while ignoring progress made by Trump confirms that Anon is losing argument and losing his Shiite.

      2. Anon — yes, you name a few conservative voices. Seems you have not noticed that all of Hollywood, the music industry, pro sports celebrity athletes, late nite comedy chat shows, all non-Fox News channels, Public Television, most cable news, and all of popular culture, including glossy magazine covers glamorizing the likes of Michello Obama, our greatest most beautiful amazing First Lady, EVER, didn’t you hear?? Has First Lady Melania been on one single magazine cover? No. Why do you suppose that is??

        1. “Has First Lady Melania been on one single magazine cover? No. Why do you suppose that is??”

          I could suggest some covers some of her photo’s would be a good fit for but that would be beneath me.

          1. I could suggest some covers some of her photo’s would be a good fit for but that would be beneath me.

            You’ve just made the case for the manner in which President Trump communicates. He has the balls to state clearly what you apparently do not.

            1. Except the photos which I not so subtlely referred to actually exist. Whereas at least every other thing out of Trump’s mouth is a lie. Yes or no, does Trump lie frequently?

                1. Yes, liars that they all are, none compare to Trump with the range, frequency, and audacity, of his lies. Most people when they get caught at least stop telling that particular lie. Not so with Trump, he repeats them louder.

                  1. Yes or no…is Trump a career politician? Is Trump a member of the club? The political establishment? Was Trump elected in order to challenge the political status quo? Or maintain it?

                    Is Trump beholden to special interests, like big Pharma, Wall Street, chemical and oil companies in the way Hillary Clinton was bought and paid for?

                    If America wanted to challenge the status quo that got us into the messes that we are in, then why in the world would we elect an entrenched, incompetent, corrupt, career politician like Hillary Clinton (or Joe Biden, or God help us, Bernie Sanders) to steer us out of the ditch that the bought and paid for politicians ran us into in the first place? That is the Truth, my friend.

                1. Yes, Fox News lies all the time. There was a fake news story that made the rounds saying Fox News wasn’t allowed to broadcast in Canada because they were misrepresented so much information. It wasn’t true but even Republicans and the right thought it might have been true because they know Fox lies.
                  In fairness, on every opinion show on every network, the truth is highly situational. They have guest that promote lies which they often fail to push back on. They have their own agendas and push their own narratives. If you get your news from a single source, you’re likely misled.

                  1. Okee dokee….”Fox News lies all the time” and “Fox lies”….but according to you what the other shows do is not “lie all the time”?

                    No, according to you, the other channels don’t lie, per se, no, their presentation of “the truth” is “highly situational” and they sometimes “fail to push back on guests” who outright tell lies and falsehoods.

                    But Fox News? They “lie all the time!”

                    Of course.

                    1. On Fox News it depends, the opinion shows, especially Hannity, Laura Ingram, Tucker Carlon, have no regard for the truth but will work with the truth when it suits shem. Shephard Smith, Chris Wallace do a good job although Chris is biased, he’s not a liar so that’s fine. The Journal Editorial Report is generally okay but their panelists are apt to go anywhere. The weekend shows and Fo & Friends are totally whack.

                    2. Enigma, you don’t like Hannity because he speaks the truth and separates opinion from fact. I understand you not liking his opinions, but you have to demonstrate where he lies. So far on the facts 0 without him admitting a mistake or explaining what he meant. Difference of opinion is massive and understandable but opinion is not fact.

                      What really irks you is he tied Obama to the Reverend Wright and stateed who the Reverend Wright was for about a year before any of the other press started to figure it out. I think you can include Oprah Winfry in the congregation.

                    3. Thanks Enigma… we see you actually watch Fox News and can give an informed opinion. Now give us your show by show analysis of CNN. Then do MSNBC….

                  2. Again I agree with Enigma on something

                    Say it again:

                    “In fairness, on every opinion show on every network, the truth is highly situational. They have guest that promote lies which they often fail to push back on. They have their own agendas and push their own narratives. If you get your news from a single source, you’re likely misled.”

                    1. Right, but he asserts that “Fox News lies all the time”….and BSNBC doesn’t?? CNN doesn’t?? The ladies on The View don’t lie? Of course they all do. But according to Enigma, the other stations “fail to push back on guests,” sometimes. Try again.

                    2. enigma said they ALL fail to push back. i am sure he dislikes fox but he said “every opinion show on every network” that certainly includes ALL of them. and yes they are all thin soup

              1. Except the photos which I not so subtlely referred to actually exist.

                That neither explains why the first lady hasn’t been featured on magazine covers traditional for her public position, nor does it excuse your subtle vulgarity.

                Whereas at least every other thing out of Trump’s mouth is a lie. Yes or no, does Trump lie frequently?

                Frequently? No. The mistake you and your ilk have made is you’ve staked out a position claiming everything President Trump says is a lie. That has not served you well in the court of public opinion when that claim has defied actual evidence. And that track record is not going to improve as more evidence is brought to the public’s attention regarding all the efforts to undermine his presidency.

                  1. i prefer to think of these sorts of things as oversimplifications and sometimes errors. I would admit that he lies sometimes. Of course, I can’t see inside his head or heart, so perhaps he is just often mistaken.

                    Would you admit lying is a specialty skill of politicians in general? In this Trump has lots of company.

                    1. the tariff threat was legitimately along the lines of “making mexico pay for the wall” and it appears to have produced that rare product of the politician– RESULTS

                      but who knows, maybe that will not be borne out. time will tell

                    2. Of course, I can’t see inside his head or heart, so perhaps he is just often mistaken.

                      The fact is, no one can. The question is, are we harmed by what politicians say, or are we harmed by what they do? I believe we are only harmed by what they say if the citizens are stupid enough to believe them in the first place, because those idiots won’t change course when they are betrayed by their candidate. I don’t trust any politician by what they say. If their actions (what they do) fail to live up to what they said, then they will not get my support.

                  2. And the Washington Post, the NYT, MSNBC and CNN are now the sole arbiters of fact checking? Thanks for today’s biggest chuckle.

                  3. Sorry, but most astute consumers of ‘news’ no longer consider the WaPo to be an unbiased credible source.

      3. Poor you Anon – I’m a Canadian female who sees Donald Trump for exactly what he is and that is the democratically-elected, hard-working President of the USA. No question he is different than any of his predecessors, but as SBG wrote it has been years that he, his family and anyone who supports him, have been so despicably & hypocritically denigrated, it’s no wonder he strikes back. I try to watch CNN, MSNBC etc., but all those dour-looking female announcers and those anything-but-truthful male opinionators, are just too painful to look at or listen to for more than a few moments.
        Obviously the left remains totally unhinged & deranged when confronted with the President’s substantial results regarding a terrific economy, outstanding stock & housing markets, increased job opportunities & manufacturing, low unemployment, enviable foreign relations, many supreme & lower court appointments, extricating and/or improving the US position on bad deals like NATO, NAFTA, climate change and Iran, and doing all this amid his daily inexorable battles over Sanctuary cities, border security, illegal immigrants, religious extremists, plus drug and human trafficking most notably thanks to the ever-increasing and mind-mindbogglingly dumb decrees made by the likes of NY’s deBlasio, California’s Newsom and the tribe of Dem’s trying to beat him in 2020.
        The left is so desperate to get him out of office, having refused to accept Mueller’s report, they’re now screaming IMPEACH and/or JAIL the President, even though they have not one shred of evidence to do so!
        Strikes me your final five words better describe the Democratic Party and all their flunkies in MSM, and the entertainment industry.

  18. L4D says–On June 6th–The 75th Anniversary of D-Day–Turley wrote the following about the Democratic party:

    That is why pathological gamblers often show a “reliance on others to provide money to relieve desperate situations caused by gambling.” Rational legislators do not litigate close calls, and this was not a close call. Yet, at the very time that the court was dismissing it, Pelosi and House leaders were back at the poker table, scheduling a vote on contempt against Barr next week. It is a pattern that would make Pete Rose blush.

    [end excerpt]

    Surely Turley is incapable of seeing his own “political pathology,” least of Trump’s “political pathology.” It is not difficult to imagine Turley on his knees begging Trump to be “Presidential.” Please? Mr. President. Please be Presidential.

    Turley principles are puny and feckless.

    1. JT isn’t the one “incapable of seeing his own political pathology”.
      Coming from L4B🤯🤪, that statement is one of the more humorous ones posted here in a while.

  19. “First, there are in fact many surrogates for Trump who will “hit back.” However, that is not the point. Being presidential — like being principled — demanded that you sometimes take a course that it not to your advantage. It means not yielding to every temptation or fighting for every political advantage.”
    *************
    We learned from master politician Bill Clinton that you meet every challenge, respond to every attack and stay on offense. As Latin proverb goes: Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit (He who is silent, when he ought to have spoken and was able to, is taken to agree). The Romans may not have been “presidential” but they knew a thing or two about power politics — and ultimately isn’t that what matters?

    1. Prepare yourself for the inevitable day when a democratic president plays by Trump’s Rules. When you get a taste of your own Roman medicine, we’ll see how much you like it and hearing in response to your complaints, “Tump did it!”

      1. “When you get a taste of your own Roman medicine, we’ll see how much you like it ….”
        ********************
        As many here know, I have no problem when a politician gives mouth to realpolitik. It’s the honest approach.

    2. Don’t blame tRump, blame ______________, e.g., Clinton, either will do; Obama, he’s black you know; Soros, rich and, gasp, liberal; AOC, Hispanic and hip, etc., etc. you are a one-trick pony just fill in the blank.

      1. Trump criticizes “fake” news and left spins that to attack on free press. By the way, Obama is half-black – he has suppressed and ignored his white heritage. For Obama it was better business to go with black, “first black president”….more powerful and compelling at ballot box, but somewhat dishonest.

        1. Recent “fake news” pointed out by Trump:

          Navy was asked by the WH to move the USS McCain

          Tens of thousands Londoners protested his visit.

          1. Tens of thousands rallied in support of his visit as well. But the news doesn’t want to show you that.

          2. It seems all Anon is able to do is recopy what he previously wrote so I will recopy my response.

            From the picture in the WSJ:
            “A tarp obscures the name of the USS John S. McCain ahead of President Trump’s visit to Japan.”

            Was that picture of the tarp taken at the site in Japan or was it taken elsewhere? Does anyone know for sure? There are claims that say no. I personally don’t know one way or the other.

            That is a problem. All too many of these claims have been wrong. The caged children blamed on Trump was actually filmed during the Obama years.

            Did the media give the impression that Trump was involved? Yes.
            Did they give the impression that the WH was involved? Yes
            Could the action have been taken by someone outside of the WH? Yes.

            Here we have much of the scenario where some of the statements may be true. Some contradict other statements so have to be false and some that are false.

            When truth and fiction are conflated one has to call the overall idea a lie. That is known as “fake” news. If the media doesn’t like the term they can specifically say what is true and prove it.

        2. Not even “somewhat dishonest.” The voters actually paying attention and doing their own due dilligence understand the dishonest fraud that Barack Obama is. He didn’t even use the name “Barack Hussein Obama” until it became part of the fabricated and carefully packaged “image” that was then sold to the American people. He is a fraud through and through. Dishonest is one word that perfectly describes Barack Hussein Obama. What about him is ‘real’? It’s perfect that in his post presidency he has gone to Hollywood to hang with movie makers and celebrities. They know all about phony “image” and “make believe.” Obama now fits right in with that crowd for a reason.

        3. I am pretty sure your kind don’t make a distinction nor in a fair world should it matter. OTOH, you are ignorant and there is no fixing it.

        4. “By the way, Obama is half-black – he has suppressed and ignored his white heritage.”

          This country has always been governed by the “one drop rule” far more than any concept of half-black where he presumably gets the both of best worlds. No offense Bill Martin, yours is as stupid a comment as I’ve heard here in some time and that’s saying a lot.

          1. “This country has always been governed by the “one drop rule””

            Enigma is essentially right to point out the “one drop rule” though a lot of people think the one drop rule to be totally wrong. Historically the one’s supporting the one drop rule were leftists and Democrats in the south that passed all sorts of Jim Crow Laws. My recollection is that when trying to pass the Nuremberg Laws (nothing to do with the trial) the Nazi’s in charge tried to develop an algorithm to determine who was Jewish and ultimately that would determine the deaths and torture of over six million people that were Jewish.

            The one drop rule was suggested but considered too extreme by some of the Nazi’s though not extreme for southern Democrats and those that were behind the eventual creation of Planned Parenthood.

            You see Enigma, every once in awhile we have agreement. Racism is bad but not only bad against only one race. It is bad when used against any race or people.

            1. When you say “leftists and Democrats in the South,” you lump together two groups that have nothing to do with each other. The leftists of that day were the Republicans who were partially founded to abolish slavery. The time came when they looked the other way in order to win a contested Presidential election in 1876, agreeing in the Compromise of 1877 to accept the Presidency and remove Federal Troops from the South. In 1878, they gave us Posse Comitatus which ensured Federal Troops would never return to proctet black people and they looked the other way when Democrats gave us Jim Crow, while Republicans said and did little.
              And your suggestion that parts of America didn’t go along with the one drop rule is totally wrong. What did happen for some of those with just a few drops is that they sometimes chose to pass for white and avoid the racism that affected anyone identified as black regardless of color. Racism is bad all the time, especially when a political position makes one f=refuse to acknowledge it still exists.

              1. I would agree with Enigma on three points, if I understand him correctly

                1- 19th century Republican abolitionists were radicals in their day, and Democrats where conservatives. I think that’s fair to say

                2- white society in the north was very segregated until the 1964 civil rights act, by private practice if not law

                3- many white people prior to the Civil Rights ear of the 1960s aquiesced to a certain cultural acceptance of the one drop rule, but it was moderated by “passing.” the one drop rule would exclude many who can “pass,” and it was considered extreme even by the average racist white person

                I have heard the opinion from “racists” of the older generation, that most hexadecaroons can easily pass. That’s 1/16 african ancestry, remainder european. most people have never heard of a hexadecaroon; just as most have never heard of an octoroon or a quadroon, maybe, unless they’ve read some Anne Rice novel about old Louisiana society. These things can be looked up online,.

                there is a jailhouse rule that is the current “Common sense” among incarcerated white racists that “If you look white and say you are white, then you are white.” end of analysis. I am not sure how black inmates calculate this issue from their perspective.

                People can make out of this what they may.

              2. Enigma, slavery whether it be direct as occurred in the south or indirect as occurred during reconstruction and later carries the idea of master over slave and that is the idea behind totalitarianism almost an imperative in the leftist word.

                The parties Democrat and Republican are merely parties that may follow certain principals. The left of today including much of the Democratic Party and the slave owners of the past carry the idea of master over slave. That cannot be denied by anyone knowledgeable and seeking the truth.

                You are trying to deal with parties at the present where you conflate a lot of different things to pin point a specifically desired result. I don’t like either party so have at it, but I believe in individual freedom something your principles seem to oppose. I believe in the Constitution something your principles seem to oppose. You are too willing to manipulate the truth because your principles do not exist outside of your faith based religious ideology.

                “Racism is bad all the time, especially when a political position makes one f=refuse to acknowledge it still exists.”

                You say this but those who you follow and likely yourself don’t really believe this. Take note of what happens when someone says All lives matter instead of Black lives matter. I understand the distinction but the attempt is to wipe out that person saying it instead of finding a better way to communicate. Take note how you deny all sorts of things that fit your faith based religious ideolgy. To you there is only one side, your ideology and we hear that in spades with your comments on any racial issue such as the Central Park 5, Black LIves Matter, how you dismiss the violence on the left and in the universities etc. You are not an honest broker.

              3. “Racism is bad all the time, especially when a political position makes one f=refuse to acknowledge it still exists.”

                I don’t usually agree with “categorical imperatives” like this.

                Much depends on what is deemed “Racist”

                Are laws linking national citizenship to ancestry racist?
                I often hear this claim made

                But consider that the ancient Roman principle called “Jus sanguinis” is followed my many if not most nations of the world. Are they all racist? Kenyans racist just like Icelanders and Indians and South Koreans?

                Doesn’t make much sense to me. I don’t think I can agree with that categorical statement.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

                Also “racism” may simply be a question of who’s ox is gored. One group often considers that others racist, just by virtue of normal ethnocentric customs. So if you are beneficiary, often you don’t think it’s racist. but if you get the wrong end of the stick, then you do!

            2. The 1935 Nuremberg laws had rules about who is a jew that were informed by Halachic conventions, Christian traditions, and social and political issues of the time. they generally counted “mischelinge” (mixed) as a person with at least 1 out of 4 grandparents, jewish, which were further dependent on status as baptized or not. there were civil disabilities imposed.

              there were 150 000 or so “mischelinge” who served in the German armed forces during WW2. Just not the SS which took ancestral records much farther back

              if you are interested in this, read Bryan Mark Rigg’s Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers, a very interesting book

              https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-1638-1.html

              history is rarely as simple as we pretend

          2. Enigmaman, You cant handle the truth about Messiah Obama. He definitely ran with the black label to get elected and ran from his white side. Anytime somebody says “no offense” typically they are winding up to offend. Nice try using the “stupid” adjective to react to and try to tap down a factual statement that you did not like.

            1. You apparently have never lived as a half-black person, or any percentage to know just how stupid you sound. Keep trying to convince me of what it’s like for Obama or anyone to be black in this country. I’ll get some popcorn.

              1. You have had a pretty good life Enigma, scholarship and all. My family is diverse some from south of the border and some from the east. Some came over with tatoos leaving the dead and tortured one’s behind. Do you think you know what type of life that is?

                You have been a priviledged individual who is a bast–d thinking only he has suffered and demeaning people that have truly suffered. Such BS should be thrown in the toilet. I have no Civil War Veterans in my family that I know of but do you think those people in that war, in WW2, WW1 etc. didn’t suffer? My own wife suffered arrest and jail at a young age finally getting out carrying things for western governments and crossing a minefield. She received nothing in the US but another group of relatives that were fortunate carried a label that likely helped them get into good universities. I don’t fault them and am happy but see the dichotomy that you wish to promote. You are using the suffering of others to enhance your ideology.

              2. Enigmaman throwing down the black card to divert away from comments I made about Obama. The man intentionally shunned his white heritage to get elected. Its not about understanding what its like to be black or half black in America, I am commenting on Messiah Obama’s actions and in-actions. He was never interested in touting the simple fact that he is half white which could have gone a long way toward improving race relations in this country. Going with the black narrative was simply better business for him.

                  1. Again, use of pejorative words combined with throwing down the “I am black card and you don’t understand”. No substantive response to my observation on how Obama leveraged his black heritage and shunned is white heritage to get elected. For him that was good political business and good life bu$ine$$ (but not very honest).

                    1. You are the one throwing around race. I’m just telling you , you don’t know a damn thing about it. My experience is when people accuse someone of “playing the black card,” they’ve lost the argument.

                    2. My experience is when people accuse someone of “playing the black card,” they’ve lost the argument.

                      My experience is when people claim to win arguments by default, it’s because they have no other winning option.

                    3. You know your buddy Allan does it all the time, but that’s another subject. Back tp my discussion with Bill Martin. I sumbit that if Bill were to submit himself as an expert witness on black people he’d be rejected. His theory is nonsense. I’m not sure I’ve ever met more than a few black people in my lifetime that weren’t some percentage white. They’re generall not considered half-black, three-quarters black, one-fifth black. They’re pretty much just considered black, particularly by white people. Mr. Kurtz offered a definition a while back suggesting that IIRC someone 1/16th black or less is considered white. That too is incorrect, if they can be identified as black… they’re black. Bill Martin’s opinion as to how someone of a certain percentage of blackness should have comported themselves isn’t even an argument, it’s delusion. I didn’t win the argument by default. He never ever had an argument to begin with. Just stupidity.

                    4. sumbit that if Bill were to submit himself as an expert witness on black people he’d be rejected.

                      No doubt and that was my point. It is an intellectually weak effort to disqualify people. Are you wealthy, have you run a business, have you been shot at, where do you live, what’s your color, etc. It’s just lazy. There is nothing wrong with identifying someone’s experience, but that is not a replacement for arguing facts.

                    5. “You know your buddy Allan does it all the time”

                      No Enigma. You play the black card all the time and I just respond to you telling you that it is character that counts, not color or race. You perpetuate this type of ignorance. I had a lot of friends where either they or their children married outside of their race. I noted a problem increasing after Obama became President. He pushed racism when he could have been a great President and united all Americans. There isn’t a great difference between the races except in your mind.

                    6. “You never disappoint.”

                      Don’t expect me to change Enigma. I’ve seen too much. Letting racism run your life is sad way of living it but that is what you have chosen. I’ll live by the rule that character is what counts not skin color.

                    7. Bill I refer you to Obama’s 2008 Philadelphia speech which he wrote himself and is one of the smartest and sympathetic discussions of the subject of race in America, one which by virtue of his unusual upbringing, he saw more clearly than most. That he chose at a fairly young age to live as a black man after being raised by a white mother – by then deceased – and family and without rejecting or cutting them off was his business, not yours, and the complexity of his situation gave him difficult decisions none of us face. He’s handled it extremely well and his education was something we all benefited from.

                    8. discussions of the subject of race in America, one which by virtue of his unusual upbringing, he saw more clearly than most.

                      Who knew a high rise in Honolulu could be so instructive?

              3. Well it turned out pretty good for Barry Soetero, didn’t it? Yep, without that half blackness, and a ghost-written book, do you even remotely think he would now be well on his way to becoming a celebrity billionaire star ex-president? Not on your life. Being black was his ticket to ride. Don’t he know it.

                1. Because “being black” has always worked out like that. WHy are you anonymous by the way? At least Allan uses his real name. I have more respect for someone that doesn’t hide.

                  1. “At least Allan uses his real name. I have more respect for someone that doesn’t hide.”

                    Thank you Enigma for the respect granted but I would prefer if you instead respected me because I judge people on their character rather than the color of their skin.

                    1. Can’t tell what you are saying Enigma. Are you saying that a person who believes in the law and doesn’t want illegal immigration is a racist? Alternatively are you saying that all people should not be treated equally under the law or there is racism? Just what is it that you are saying? If I practiced flagellation because I might be white would that satisfy you?

                    2. I’m saying I have yet to ascertain your motivation. I have no concern about your beliefs, what I don’t know is what motivates your nastiness, name calling, and inability to simply have a civil conversation after more than a couple of exchanges. Despite what you think, I don’t blame racism for everything, I just haven’t been able to rule it out.

                    3. Enigma, how can you assess anyone’s motivations when you are so polorized that you are unable to talk about anything without generalizations or calling people liars. Get real. My motivations are clear and if you are unsure you can ask and I’ll give a straight answer recognizing that other points of views presented appropriately can even change my own.

                    4. Have I ever called you a liar? If you deny me the right to call Trump a liar when he does it literally every day. You have no interest in facts. Today’s example
                      1. Trump announces great new deal with Mexico
                      2. NYT reports deal consists of things Mexico agreed to months ago (Reporting doesn’t definitively make it true)
                      3. Trump says there’s a new signed agreement with a great new deal/
                      4. Mexico calls BS says there’s no such agreement.

                      Who in this sequence of events is the liar?

                    5. “If you deny me the right to call Trump a liar”

                      I don’t stop you from calling anyone a liar rather I incentivize you to define your terms, prove your case and then if there is a case show how he is more of a liar than your favorites whether it be Hillary or anyone else. We don’t want to hear reasons like 2 decades before Trump was born he is blamed for an activity that never occurred.

                      “1. Trump announces great new deal with Mexico”

                      It might seem that this deal already existed but we didn’t see the Mexican government doing what it needed to do. The last agreement was sending 500 troops and this agreement sent 5,000 but even if this agreement stops the flow and is identical to the last agreement then this is a positive event. Just like Olly pointed out you expect everyone to prove they aren’t racists. You expect Trump to prove the deal works when to judge it we have to give it time. But then I think you may have been one of the many to claim there wasn’t a crisis on the border.

                      “2. NYT reports deal consists of things Mexico agreed to months ago (Reporting doesn’t definitively make it true)”

                      #1 and #2 are essentially the same but at least you got it right that what the NYTimes reports isn’t necessarily true. Are you looking for results or just trying to find something to complain about. We will see soon enough how much of an effect Trump had. I’m hoping for a good result but it seems you are voting for a bad one.

                      3. I’m sure there were some signatures or type of agreement.

                      4. “Mexico calls BS says there’s no such agreement.” The President of Mexico seems to have disagreed with your assessment and said there was an agreement.

                      None of this should even be considered a lie. It’s a negotiation which seems to have worked at least temporarily in the United State’s favor

                    6. Enigma, after all that you have seen with the Russia hoax (the part directly involving Trump) you should have learned that the news doesn’t provide the accuracy one requires to make the type of judgements you make. In fact your article doesn’t deny an agreement was made rather indirectly states an agreement was made. “Mexico denies Trump’s claim of secret concessions in deal” A deal was made but there is a dispute over secret concessions. Once again you are proven wrong by your own data.

                      “UPDATED 11:18 AM PT — Monday, June 10, 2019

                      Mexico’s president has commended his foreign minister, following successful negotiations which led to the U.S. dropping its planned tariffs.

                      During a press briefing Monday, President Andes Manuel Lopez Obrador said avoiding the tariffs was more important than playing political games with Washington.” https://thepatrioticpost.com/trending-stories/mexican-president-praises-foreign-minister-after-u-s-agrees-to-drop-tariffs/

                    7. Should William Barr step down, Trump should appoint you to explain things completely opposite of what they are. You could also replace Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, she’s pretty much stopped giving press conferences altogether, she was tired of getting confronted about her lies (Oh there’s that word again). If they stop lying, I’ll stop calling it out.

                    8. Enigma take note how I address your statements directly to which you respond with innuendo rather than fact. That is because you are factless.

                      The big gripe against Sanders that the left has is she is a bit overweight. That is the nature of your hate. You place people into little groups hoping to destroy the groups by innuendo instead of fact.

                      Your biggest argument against Barr is that he refused to break the law. You don’t care about right or wrong. You only wish to promote a hate filled ideology.

                      Provide the facts. You couldn’t even correctly read your own news article that demonstrated a deal was made between Trump and Mexico. You couldn’t even admit you were wrong. That is what hate does. It clouds the mind and creates images that never existed.

                    9. Despite what you think, I don’t blame racism for everything, I just haven’t been able to rule it out.

                      Well that statement couldn’t be more clear. You begin your analysis of everything with a race bias until you’re convinced it can be eliminated as a motivation. Isn’t that a bit like finding someone guilty until proven innocent? And it’s not as though there is some physical evidence that an innocent person might produce that proves what is in their heart. Isn’t that convenient for those making a living off of race-hustling. Sorry P. T., but apparently there’s a racist born every minute.

                      Prove me wrong.

                    10. Alan, you’re one of those complicated White conservatives. You probably know Blacks and Hispanics that you’re generally pleasant to throughout a typical week.

                      But politically your concern for Blacks is limited to convoluted narratives like the ‘Democratic Plantation’. Oh, and your deep admiration for Candice Owens and Thomas Sowell.

                      In Alan’s daily comments Blacks will benefit if we deport the illegals and build Trump’s border wall. This kind of logic reflects the ‘politics of division’; a strategy Republicans have played since the Nixon era.

                      Anyone who wants to play Blacks against Hispanics is obnoxious. We don’t need those tensions in Los Angeles. New York and Chicago don’t need those tensions.

                      Nor can we afford the disingenuous narrative that Blacks are ‘victims of Planned Parenthood’. That is the most cynical narrative conservatives regurgitate.

                      Planned Parenthood is actually one of the largest healthcare providers to women in America. P P has been a lifeline to Black and Hispanic women. P P is crucial to poor Whites.

                      So when some Trumper starts up with ‘P P’s Black genocide’ garbage, I think that Trumper is aggressively mean-spirited. How dare they exploit Blacks with such a cynical narrative. While trying to defund an invaluable provider to women.

                    11. “those complicated White conservatives. You probably know Blacks and Hispanics”

                      Peter, you don’t read very well. My family is diverse and some have gained benefit from their diversity. I like the results but none of us asked for them or think the results are appropriate or fair. You make a lot of assumptions about me like my residence is in NY when it isn’t.

                      You are right when you state ” politically your concern for Blacks is limited”. My concern is for all people that are in need, poor people and families along with all others that make the country work. That includes blacks and hispanics but it also includes whites and Asians along with others. Why are you so fixated on color rather than need, rather than character?

                      Yes, I like Sowell, not because he is black, but because he is brilliant and uses fact to displace all the crazyness you bring to the table. Owens is just another female who so happens to be black and a good speaker who has things to say and who I am familiar with. You could learn alot from her.

                      ” politically your concern for Blacks is limited” Is it? How do you know? I’m not even one of those against immigration and based on my family make up I am not against those from south of our border.

                      One can discuss Planned Parenthood in two ways but one cannot get past it’s history involved in eugenics and one can’t get past the numbers of black babies aborted by them. How many millions have been killed? You like Planned Parenthood because they are from the left. They match your ideology even though they have been sloppy and have done a lot of wrong things that other places of abortion haven’t done.

                      Take note how generalized your comments are. You can’t talk about one item because you don’t have the knowledge. Keep promoting your leftist plantation that doesn’t give a dam- about black people, Hispanics, Asians, Christians being slaughtered in the middle east, etc. It is you who keeps the black population down in more ways than one. What you do is virtue signalling and the effect of that lasts only till the end of your sentence. I prefer things that actually work.

                  2. The point is that it worked out quite well for Barry Soetero. His rapid rise to power can be attributed to him being “the *first* mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean…” as Joe Biden once said about Barack Obama. And the rest is history…

                  3. Why do you use your real name? I find that rather strange. As for hiding, why not? I might be sort of famous or something. Maybe I’m a celebrity myself? Maybe I am a fairly well known ‘somebody’ who stops by here to get a feel for what people are saying? Have you considered that having “your” respect matters not one iota? There are many reasons some of us “hide” behind anonymous. Hmmmm….

      2. YNON:
        Not blaming Clinton. It’s admiration for genius. Whatever his (et ux) grifter proclivities, he’s the best politician in a generation or two. And, he understood how to get re-elected. As for another President employing Trump’s rhetoric, I’ll judge speech that if and when it comes. As many here know, I have no problem when a politician gives mouth to realpolitik. It’s the honest approach.

      3. AOC is Hispanic and hip? Don’t you konw that the world “Hispanic” is considered passe? How unhip of you YNOT. Perhaps you yourself are an old white fart like me?

        “Latino” is the preferred nom du jour

        https://www.teenvogue.com/story/problematic-history-of-hispanic-word

        Puerto Rican is her ancestral origin

        I find that the Mexican-Americans, Hondurans, and Puerto Ricans and Dominicans may all be “Latino” but there is much that divides them into respective national groups. It’s Democrat vote machines that count them all the same, mostly.

Leave a Reply