“Myside Bias”: How The Democrats Are Becoming More Trump-Like And Why No One Seems To Notice

Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the Trump-like rhetoric coming from Democratic leaders as the 2020 election season ramps up. While correctly criticizing President Trump for many of his comments, the Democrats have been engaging in almost identical commentary with little coverage. What is now missing is a high ground in an election season that seems to be getting more and more irresponsible and hyperbolic.

Here is the column:

Whoever ultimately prevails among the more than two dozen Democratic candidates for the presidency in 2020, the clear victor may be Peter Wason. The English psychologist was the first to establish “myside,” or confirmation bias — the tendency of people to gather or interpret facts that confirm their assumptions or preconceptions. With every passing day, the same “myside” bias is becoming more and more obvious but less and less recognized in the media.

Democratic candidates and commentators have engaged in Trump-like comments with virtually no coverage, let alone objection, because it does not confirm their view that Trump is uniquely offensive and divergent from the norm. Trump supporters often are the focus of news coverage for what is viewed as their blind loyalty and their ability to tune out offensive or embarrassing statements by Trump. Yet, the media — and many Democratic voters — have entirely ignored Democratic figures engaging in almost identical conduct or commentary. They just do not hear it because of “myside” media and politics.

Name calling

Trump often uses juvenile or insulting nicknames for those who oppose him, from “Sleepy Joe Biden” to “Crooked Hillary” to “Pencil Neck” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

The media has correctly objected to such name-calling yet said little when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) referred to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) as “Moscow Mitch,” an allusion to his allegedly being a puppet of Russian President Vladimir Putin for blocking bills on election security. McConnell took to the Senate floor to decry the “modern day McCarthyism” of labeling opponents as communist stooges over legislative disagreements.

Joe Biden has labeled President Trump as a “clown” or simply the “S.O.B.” New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio refers to “Con Don.” Yet, there was no outrage over those juvenile names — because they are dismissed as just desserts for Trump.

Attacking the media

Many of us have criticized Trump for his “enemy of the people” mantra about the media. Trump often attacks media viewed as critical of him, including most recently (and repeatedly) Fox News.

Yet, there was nothing but crickets when former congressman Beto O’Rourke (R-Texas) described Fox News and other conservative media outlets as being virtual mouthpieces of terrorism. Following the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, O’Rourke declared that “the seeds of terror … are transmitted day and night on Fox News, the most-watched cable news channel in the country.” He added that “they are amplified” by conservative media companies like Sinclair Media (which owns ABC, CBS and Fox affiliates) and “right-wing websites” like Breitbart.

Other Democratic candidates have attacked what they view as hostile media, too. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) described Fox News as “a hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists” and mixing legitimate coverage with “bigotry, racism and outright lies.” Many people simply do not register these comments as attacks on the free press because they agree with the premise.

Attacking judges

Many of us have criticized Trump for his attacks on the integrity of jurists who ruled against him, such as his criticism of Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s Mexican heritage. Many in the media celebrated when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked Trump by rejecting the president’s talk of “Obama judges” or Democratic appointees serving on court benches.

Yet, when decisions have gone in favor of the Trump administration, many Democrats and media commentators have immediately referred to those judges as virtual Republican dupes. Democratic members have referred to Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh as the “Trump Justices” and threatened to expand the Supreme Court to dilute their votes. (In reality, both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh voted with the left of the Court on critical cases last term).

Esquire magazine published a column denouncing judges who ruled against ObamaCare, declaring that the Republican arguments “don’t need to make sense. They just need the right judges — and they’re everywhere in the federal judicial system.” One Nation article explained how Trump jurists “swarming our judicial system . . . will linger, like an infected wound poisoning the body politic.” CNN ran headlines about “Republican-appointed judges” supporting the ObamaCare challenge, while Democratic members of Congress denounced federal judges ruling for the Trump administration as examples of why new judges must be appointed by Democrats.

None of these attacks were viewed as casting aspersions on judicial independence — because, of course, they were considered true while Trump’s attacks were viewed as false.

Politicizing the legal process

Trump has been criticized for his campaign mantra to “lock her up,” as if he could dictate the prosecution of Hillary Clinton. He criticized the special counsel investigations and, bizarrely, intervened in Sweden’s prosecution of American rapper A$AP Rocky, demanding bail (which cannot be granted in Sweden) and suggesting a danger to U.S-Swedish diplomatic relations if A$AP Rocky was convicted (which he was this week).

All of that has been disgraceful. Yet, there was virtually no outcry when Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), a former prosecutor, adopted her own “lock him up” pledge by promising that, if elected as president, her Justice Department would have “no choice” but to prosecute Trump. The same people who found “lock her up” to be offensive found “lock him up” to be thrilling.

Last week, both Warren and Harris commented on the five-year anniversary of the Ferguson, Mo., shooting of Michael Brown, calling it a murder. The “murderer” in this case would be police officer Darren Wilson. Yet, a grand jury rejected all criminal charges in the case and the Obama administration’s Justice Department conducted a full investigation and also rejected criminal charges: “Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him.”

Thus, Warren and Harris not only rejected the conclusions of grand jurors and career prosecutors; they declared a police officer to be a murderer without even a charge, let alone a trial. Where was the outrage to that politicizing of the legal process?

None of this calls out for sympathy for Trump, who richly deserves criticism for his comments. However, Democrats have engaged in the same kind of comments with nary a word of remonstrance.

What is most striking in all of this is how many voters do not recognize their “myside” bias. Everything Trump says confirms their position, while similar comments by Democrats are ignored or excused. The result is a type of liberal exceptionalism.

In the 1960s, Wason was able to achieve his results with a couple dozen subjects, but the 2020 election is proving to be the largest Wason experiment in history, on the scale of tens of millions. The reason is that, while Wason actually exposed his subjects to opposing facts (which were still rejected), today’s voters live in hermetically sealed echo chambers where they select news that confirms their bias. For many Democrats, even if they hear Trump-like comments from fellow Democrats, they blame Trump for creating the environment leading to those comments.

What remains is bias protected by a hard shell of hypocrisy: All is fair in combating Trump … even becoming more like him by the day.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

144 thoughts on ““Myside Bias”: How The Democrats Are Becoming More Trump-Like And Why No One Seems To Notice”

  1. The truth is that Democrats have been playing this game for decades. I can’t think of one single Republican President or candidate that hasn’t been labeled in one form or another as “dumb.” For years, Republicans wouldn’t fight back, most taking the more civil high road. Then comes Trump who eschews all norms and decides to play the same game as the Democrats. Of course, they become apoplectic especially since they believe that only they, the liberal establishment elite, have the moral high ground. They’re superior to everyone, aren’t they? It’s about time that liberals get a taste of their own rhetoric. Now that both sides are playing the same game, maybe there can be a chance to have both turn it down a notch or two and become civil again.

  2. Thanks Kurtz. She probably had to sign a contract and has spent money. It would be nice if she sued and depositioned those involved. Depositions are very powerful when one wants to keep certain things secret. Why not trade your Turley time for looking into this? 😀

    1. Has to do with “they want Miss Nevada to delete all her pro trump tweets in order to compete!”

      1. That is right. I guess in your world only Progressives should compete in Miss America. I wonder if that is in their contract.

    2. I am done with political lawsuits. They don’t pay very well, all things considered.
      Also not barred in that state anyways

        1. If it’s your personal time and money spent filing, appearing for your client, et cetera, yes, money is the object. Or are you raising funds for the case?

          1. Loupgarous, money wasn’t the object being sought. That someone might want to be paid for the job is understandable but we don’t always do everything for money.

    3. I’d like to learn who else has been barred from the Miss America pageant based on their public political speech. By the way, last year, the Miss America Pageant, during their Q and A session with contestants, specificaly asked questions about their political leanings. They didn’t think their contestants could be “too political” back then. https://goodmenproject.com/arts/the-ideological-hypocrisy-of-the-miss-america-pageant-viewership-mlyd/

  3. the sick Democrats are attacking regular Americans supporting Trump all over! they want trouble.

    they want Miss Nevada to delete all her pro trump tweets in order to compete! they’re unfair and horrible people, reprehensible


    they’re targeting young pro Trump women for this kind of reprisal most of all…. they figure they lost the young men. the normal ones who aren’t anarchist antif freaks that is. . and they’re right…. now they can just pressure, pressure, pressure, wicked rotten scoundrels!

    1. Even worse, the Miss America contest producers have decided that contestants’ politics matter, and that contestants are judged, before anything else, on their politics. Not a big fan of those things, anyway, but if I were, that would be enough to discourage me watching that particular beauty pageant.

      Long after Miss Nevada puts this behind her, the Miss America pageant will be spinning this episode into something other than a disgrace.

  4. It is axiomatic that the pejorative comments swing both ways….

    But TRIFLING Trump is the master Teflon man.

    1. Foolish statements from foolish people. Get this into your head Bud. The fake news didn’t stick because it was fake news. The Teflon the MSM has been covered with seems to be rubbing off.

        1. Anonymous – if you don’t identify yourself, then you are a Bud or a guy,

          1. Hrmmm….I think I am going to start asking to only be identified as ‘IT’ from now on…cue the reactions.


          2. Paul – I do appreciate the suggestion of ‘styxhexenhammer666.’ Interesting YT-er, I do like him better on 2x speed for listening…

            But I think most ppl sound better and are easier to understand at 2X the speed in the settings….maybe it’s just me though

            1. Anonymous – glad you like Styx. He is thought-provoking. I think he just got married and his new wife is buying his black shirts. It used to be bare skin and an open leather jacket. 🙂 I missed a couple of episodes when he was in Amsterdam so he may still be single.

        2. “Is Bud for both men and women, bc I am a woman”

          It doesn’t matter. You don’t act like a woman and your concern for others appears to be nil.

  5. Speaking of bad democrats, how about Andrew Jackson? Modern democrats just hate themselves.

    1. I like Andrew Jackson. He was a great American.


      1. Just maybe very soon Jackson’s Bust shows up on an undenominated American one ounce .9999 gold piece?

        1. well. replacing Jackson with Harriett Tubman’s ugly mug is a horrible idea. ugh!

          A less bad idea, indeed, one with certain artistic merits, was in 2017 issuing a commerorative with an African origin faced Lady Liberty instead of an European faced one, the usual.


          that is charming and meaningful coin art from the US Mint.

          Now the agency responsible for the design of paper money, the Bureau of Engraving, is off its rocker for wanting to add Grandma Moses, however,. I can’t find any merit in that whatsoever.


    Donald Trump has been attacking mainstream media since the beginning of his primary campaign three years ago. ‘Fake news’ was actually a term that mainstream media applied to bogus stories Russian trolls posted on Facebook. I remember those articles on ‘my’ Facebook stream. Bernie Bros were posting them more than anyone.

    But as soon as he took office Donald Trump hi-jacked ‘fake news’ to describe mainstream media. Trump has used that term so frequently most of his supporters have forgotten it ever applied to Russian trolls. That was Trump’s intent!

    With Donald Trump the conspiracies are constantly expanding. They grow with each news cycle to accommodate Trump’s fragility. Last week, in fact, a yield curve in the Bond Markets was said to indicate a looming recession. Trump seized on that news to blame Jerome Powell, of all people. The Federal Reserve Chairman is Trump’s own appointee!

    Then yesterday Trump wildly tweets that Google manipulated its search engine to somehow swing the Popular Vote in favor of Hillary Clinton. Never mind that Hillary was favored to win the election by landslide margins. We must forget that now and think Trump really won the Popular Vote but Google stole it from him.

    Google, of course, is in the business of conducting internet searches. And annoyingly, to Trump, those internet searches keep turning up ‘Fake News’ from mainstream media. So Trump has to convince his followers that Google is part of the vast conspiracy to discredit him. That explains why facts are never what Trump says.

    This reminds me of a high school buddy. A working class hippie who shared a rented bungalow with older hippies. It became a party house where no genuine adult ever set foot. Visitors were kids like me drinking beer and smoking pot.

    Amid that party atmosphere half-baked thoughts were common. Therefore my buddy frequently remarked, “The sh*t’s getting pretty deep in here”. That was his way of saying the B S had gone too far. Which brings us back to Donald Trump.

    Will there come a point where Trump supporters hear one conspiracy too many? A junction where they realize conspiracies fit every news cycle? Does no Trumper, like my buddy, ever finally say, “The sh*t’s getting pretty deep in here”?

    Theoretically we should have reached that point a long time ago.

    1. “‘Fake news” is what the Washington Post has been reporting since day one. I remember all the Washington Post news stories Peter Hill posted and they were called fake news then and now today they are being proven to be fake news each time another document is released. Maybe we should look at Peter’s prior claims, each and everyone of them where virtually all were as fake as Peter Hill.




    President Trump alleged Monday that Google manipulated millions of voters into supporting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, saying the company “should be sued” in his latest attack on the tech giant.

    The president in a tweet referenced the work of a controversial psychologist who has claimed to have found evidence that Google’s search algorithms have been influencing voters.

    “Wow, Report Just Out! Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election!” Trump wrote. “This was put out by a Clinton supporter, not a Trump Supporter! Google should be sued. My victory was even bigger than thought!”

    Trump appears to be referring to the work of Robert Epstein, a researcher with a group based in Vista, Calif., called the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. Epstein testified in a Senate hearing in June about what he calls the “Search Engine Manipulation Effect” and claimed that his research shows Google’s search results pushed at least 2.6 million people to vote for Clinton in 2016.

    Google CEO Sundar Pichai was asked about Epstein’s work last year when he testified before a House panel and said the company had investigated it and pointed to issues with the study’s methodology.

    In a statement on Monday, a Google spokesperson called Epstein’s claim “debunked,” pointing out it has been circulating for three years.

    Conservatives have increasingly hurled allegations that social media companies like Facebook and Google are censoring right-wing voices, though they’ve offered little evidence to support their suspicions.

    Trump’s latest attack comes as he is rehashing unfounded allegations of massive voter fraud in the 2016 election.

    Edited from: “Trump Alleges Google Manipulated Voters Against Him”

    The Hill, 8/19/19

    It is shocking that a U.S. President would make such an audacious claim based on the work of ‘one’ psychologist. Trump even hash-tagged the tweet with ‘Judicial Watch’ implying that they certified the claim. Or perhaps Trump expects Judicial Watch to pursue this conspiracy with extensive litigation. In any event, Trump clearly wants to politicize online information searches.

    1. Peter, since you can’t read I find it amazing that you can write even though it is mostly drivel.


      On its face, the numbers are dubious. In his prepared remarks, Epstein estimated Google “gave at least 2.6 million votes” to Clinton, a statement that isn’t well-defined. Gave … how? These were non-voters inspired to vote? Trump voters who switched? Without knowing that, it’s hard to evaluate the accuracy of the claim.

      A claim, mind you, that is very bold. Getting millions of voters to vote a particular way is the sort of thing that political parties spend a lot of time trying to figure out. Epstein is claiming that more than 2 percent of all 2016 voters were influenced to vote for Clinton by Google. The scale is massive.

      So why does he make this claim? He appears to have combined two bits of research he’s conducted: a 2015 look at how search engine results can influence political opinion and a collection of search results from users before the 2016 contest. Over the last 25 days of the campaign, a summary of the latter research suggests, “we found that search results were, on average, biased to favor Hillary Clinton on all of those days.” Given that his earlier research found results could influence views of candidates, we get the top-line assumption.

      What does “biased to favor Hillary Clinton” mean? We don’t know. The summary doesn’t explain what that looks like.

      It does, however, suggest it found results emailed to his research team from Google’s email system (Gmail) to be unusually unbiased.

      One of the more baffling aspects to this research is that no indication is made about how the searches were conducted. Google’s search results are specific to users, and there’s no indication in the summary (mentions of using incognito mode, for example) that any effort was made to return unweighed results from the search engine. Nor is there information provided about who participated in the study. Collecting results from a group of well-to-do city dwellers, for example, might help explain any “bias.”

      This is more problematic because while the research points to thousands of search results that were analyzed, only 95 people actually provided responses to the study. Meaning if the results were driven by the identities of those individuals, the variation in the pool of results was actually 95. Oh, and of that group? Only 21 were undecided. If the 2.6 million figure derives from that group alone, the value of that figure is almost nil.

      Epstein also dances around the question of intentionality. Google insists it doesn’t re-rank its results to influence politics — meaning that it didn’t intervene with the results of its initial algorithmic ranking. Epstein says he “never claimed it did,” which suggests he’s finding fault with the algorithm itself. But, in his prepared remarks, he also pointedly claims “[a] growing body of evidence suggests that Google employees deliberately engineer ephemeral experiences to change people’s thinking.”

      If you want to allege bias but can’t prove bias, the above pair of claims seem like a needle you might want to thread.

      This is one claim from one person that, as far as I can tell, hasn’t been peer-reviewed or replicated. On its surface, it’s dubious, as is the methodology underlying it. It’s the sort of thing that people in positions of authority — such as, say, a senator or a president — might be cautious about spreading.

      But, on the other hand, it also lets Trump claim almost-victory in the 2016 election. And when something does that, Trump rarely shows any signs of hesitation about getting it in front of as many people as possible.

      Edited from: “Trump Stumbles On A New Justification For Losing The Popular Vote: It’s Google’s Fault”

      Today’s Washington Post

      1. Peter – this is based on the same math used by the Feds to determine the amount of votes swayed by Russian bots in the 2016 election.

              1. Peter – you need to widen your reading. You are in a confirmation bubble.

      1. Mespo, this allegation isn’t new. Trump could have had his Voter Fraud Commission investigate. But that whole effort went nowhere fast.

        1. Peter – because the states would not cooperate. However, Judicial Watch is making progress trimming voting rolls in many states.

          1. Mississippi and other red states refused to cooperate with Trump’s Voter Fraud Commission. Secretary’s of State both Republican and Democrat felt the commission was an insult to their jobs.

              1. Mespo, when Republican Secretaries of State in the most conservative of states say, “No, we’re not accommodate this nonsense”, that should tell you something.

                1. Peter – if there is no money behind it, there is no reason to do it. It is labor intensive.

                2. ” that should tell you something.”

                  It tells us that politicans are dishonest on both side and that some politicians of both sides are only worried about their little feifdom.

                  Some of us believe in the truth along with open and fair elections while others, like you,determine right and wrong by first determining what is best for you.

  8. Did you see this?


    ‘Dumb as a rock’ and a ‘crazed crying lowlife’: How Trump has insulted former staff

    The Independent Phil Thomas,The Independent 5 hours ago .

    On becoming president Donald Trump boasted that he only hired the best people.

    It was a claim that played into his preferred self-image of a business titan, delegating the running of his many big-money projects to shrewdly chosen managers who could be relied on to make the right calls.

    But the subsequent two and a half years have called that boast into question, and very often from an unlikely source – Mr Trump himself.

    Not only has there been a frantic turnover of senior staff, but some of the most withering condemnation of their talents has come from the very person who put them in post.

    Here’s what Donald Trump has said about some of his top appointments:

    Anthony Scaramucci (communications director)
    “Anthony Scaramucci is a highly unstable “nut job” who was with other candidates in the primary who got shellacked, & then unfortunately wheedled his way into my campaign. I barely knew him until his 11 days of gross incompetence-made a fool of himself, bad on TV. Abused staff,…

    ….got fired. Wrote a very nice book about me just recently. Now the book is a lie? Said his wife was driving him crazy, “something big” was happening with her. Getting divorced. He was a mental wreck. We didn’t want him around. Now Fake News puts him on like he was my buddy!”
    Fired July 2017

    Rex Tillerson (secretary of state)
    “Rex Tillerson, a man who is ‘dumb as a rock’ and totally ill prepared and ill equipped to be Secretary of State, made up a story (he got fired) that I was out-prepared by Vladimir Putin at a meeting in Hamburg, Germany. I don’t think Putin would agree. Look how the U.S. is doing!”
    Fired March 2018

    Jerome Powell (chairman of the Federal Reserve)
    “This guy made a big mistake. The head of the Fed — another beauty I chose!”
    Still in post

    Steve Bannon (chief strategist)
    “Michael Wolff is a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book. He used Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job. Now Sloppy Steve has been dumped like a dog by almost everyone. Too bad!”
    Fired August 2017

    Omarosa Manigault Newman (assistant to the president)
    “When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give her a job at the White House, I guess it just didn’t work out. Good work by General Kelly for quickly firing that dog!”
    Fired January 2018

    Jeff Sessions (attorney general)
    “I’m so sad over Jeff Sessions because he came to me. He was the first senator that endorsed me. And he wanted to be attorney general, and I didn’t see it.

    “And then he went through the nominating process and he did very poorly. I mean, he was mixed up and confused, and people that worked with him for, you know, a long time in the Senate were not nice to him, but he was giving very confusing answers. Answers that should have been easily answered. And that was a rough time for him.”
    Resigned at president’s request November 2018

    Donald McGahn (White House counsel)
    I was NOT going to fire Bob Mueller, and did not fire Bob Mueller. In fact, he was allowed to finish his Report with unprecedented help from the Trump Administration. Actually, lawyer Don McGahn had a much better chance of being fired than Mueller. Never a big fan! – never a big fan.
    Fired October 2018

    Gary Cohn (chief economic adviser)
    “Gary Cohn, I could tell stories about him like you wouldn’t believe.”
    Resigned March 2018

    Now, just exactly how is mainstream media supposed to cover Trump insulting his own appointments in a “fair and balanced” manner? You don’t have to be a psychologist to see that this screams of narcissism.

    1. “You don’t have to be a psychologist to see that this screams of narcissism.”

      How did Hillary lose against him again?


      you dumb azz Natchacha. Has anyone grabbed you by the puzzy lately or is that Hillary”s job ?


      1. Sorry, Anonymous, but Hillary WON the popular vote. Trump cheated, with Russia’s help in key districts in key states, to win the Electoral College. Read the Mueller Report.

        As to the rest of your comment, why am I not surprised that you would say something so crass?

    2. why do we have to be treated to this nonstop daily off topic slander of Trump?

      she is never on topic– this is her ONLY topic!

      it’s not relevant at all.spam !

      next time I come back, maybe somebody trying to sell me car insurance or enhancement pills too

  9. As long as I can remember, politics in this country has been like watching the guards (Democrats) pummel the cons (Republicans) in the 2nd half of the game in the The Longest Yard. Now that the Mean Machine, led by Trump, is beating the Democrats at their own game, the Democrats and their lefty supporters have been exposed as the frauds they are.

    H I S T O R Y!

  10. Jon: here’s the problem: you keep trying to treat Trump like he is valid and legitimate, implying that the usual rules of Presidential engagement should apply. Therefore, according to you, when public figures and other candidates say negative things about him, they are engaging in myside bias because they believe that things they say about him are true, but, according to you, they are just engaging in the same hyperbole ascribed to Trump. This logic is flawed. First of all, a Presidential candidate is not equivalent to the POTUS.

    Presidents are supposed to be role models and ultimate patriots. Country and American values are supposed to come first. Presidents don’t call African countries “sh*tholes”. They don’t call brown people “vermin, animals, invaders, breeders, rapists, murderers or criminals”. They don’t brag about grabbing womens’ genitalia. They don’t appoint their unqualified daughter and her equally-unqualified husband as “senior advisors”, or bring their daughter to high-level government conferences. They don’t call White Supremacists “fine people”, and don’t separate young children from their parents as a “deterrent” to seeking asylum. They don’t establish concentration camps where brown people are held in deplorable conditions. They don’t call political opponents petty, schoolyard names. They are, however, fair game. That’s how it has always been up to now. There have always been unflattering caricatures, nicknames and jokes about the POTUS, going back to the earliest times that newspapers were published. Presidents are supposed to rise above such things. Trump cannot.

    Due to his narcissism, immaturity and lack of respect for the office he cheated to get, because his ego needed what he perceived would be the ultimate praise, adulation and prestige, he cannot refrain from petty name-calling, vindictiveness and his lifelong habit of constantly lying or just simply making things up. The ego comes first, way before country and patriotism, which is why the main qualification for serving in his administration is loyalty to the egomaniac, as opposed to loyalty to the truth and patriotism. That is why he fires people like Dan Coats because he won’t lie to make Trump look good. He cannot stand people who know more about things than he does, which is why he fired so many diplomatic and State Department professionals with years of experience serving under both Democratic and Republican administrations. These people have irreplaceable knowledge based on years of experience and know the players and inter-relationships in foreign countries and governments, but Trump doesn’t and he doesn’t trust anyone who isn’t first of all loyal to him. The ego requires this. He doesn’t trust anyone who worked for another administration. We have lost the insight of experienced professionals in international relations because of Trump’s ego.

    As to the “lock him up” chanting, HRC was investigated and found not to have committed any criminal offense. Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator to crimes Michael Cohen is serving time for. This is false equivalency. Mueller found ample evidence of obstruction of justice. Is he supposed to just get away with this? What about failing to call out the supporter who shouted “shoot them”? Then, shortly thereafter, that’s exactly what happened. Are media supposed to ignore all of this?

    Faux News, Breitbart, Limbaugh, and the other extreme right-wing media DO ignore all of this and inflame their disciples (because that’s what they really are–not viewers) against Democratic candidates. They keep trying to create the falsehood that Reps. Tlaib and Omar represent mainstream Democratic platform views, because that stirs up the disciples and makes moderate Democrats, which are the overwhelming majority, look bad. They paint HRC and Nancy Pelosi as crazy, immoral and unworthy of office. As to “attacks on the free press”, Trump calls mainstream media the “enemy of the people”.

    As to judges, Obama was validly elected by the majority of the American people, who were entitled to a SCOTUS nominee upon the death of Scalia. McConnell deprived Americans of their choice, and instead installed judges whose main qualification is extreme conservatism. Recall that Trump called a CA federal judge biased because of his Mexican heritage? Did Faux News criticize this? Does anyone really believe that Faux News is unbiased?

    1. You keep trying to present the fiction that you’re a gainfully employed adult with a serious career. No one buying it.

        1. Diane, the assisted living denizen in adult diapers, is calling others old fools. Too rich.

          1. There is no “Diane” you old coot. It’s just another one of your delusions.

              1. Thanks Anonymous @ 6 pm for telling us what we already know about you. And where would y’all be without “Diane.”

              2. Hmmm there is some truth to that. You seem to have many of Diane’s bad qualities and since you identify yourself without a name it is fair to call you Diane along with the other anonymous’s who might be bad as well but none the less permit their same anonymity to elevate your stature.

        2. Anonymous – if you want to White Knight for Natacha, then use your real name.

          1. I find it easier to support Natacha, insult people, and be a bothersome troll if I don’t use my real name.

            1. In other words you want to be part of a mob like those in Antifa so you don’t have to take responsibility for any of the stupid things you say.

    2. Natacha – you lack of the grasp of US Presidential history is stunning. Your grade school, high school and college, owe you your money back. They have all failed you. You are a low information voter, assuming you vote.

      The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

      He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

      The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

      SECTION 3
      He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

      Those are his Constitutional requirements. Do you see any thing here that prevents Trump from doing what you are complaining about? Do you???????

      1. Every single man (up to now) who has served as President has risen to the occasion, at least as far as not engaging in petty, childish name-calling and sour grapes criticism of former employees are concerned. Look up old newspaper cartoons and political commentary. There is a rich trove of such information, and it is enlightening as to the times and issues facing each POTUS. Criticism of the POTUS is as old as the office itself. It is part and parcel of the job, and the dignity of the office requires that the President not respond in kind, much less stoop to name-calling or other immature behavior. That’s why you never heard Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, LBJ, either of the Bushes or Ronald Reagan retaliate by accusing newspapers of being the “enemy of the people”, call critics or opponents names, level grade-school type insults as to a person’s appearance or overtly engage in racist comments, like calling African countries “sh*thole”, or calling migrants “vermin, animals, invaders, murderers, rapists and criminals”. That is because the Office is greater than the man, and every single man respected that and the American values attached to the office. Up to now, at least.

        Trump is a malignant narcissist. HE does and always will, come first. That ego of his is the most-important thing of all, and the only reason he sought the Presidency was for attention, adulation, praise and power. Anyone who is anything less than a total brown-nose syncophant, or who crosses him, even by presenting facts that are important to national security, like Dan Coats for instance, or if there are issues about the economy, well the bearer of such tidings either gets criticized or fired. He constantly lies about everything, especially facts that he perceives make him look bad or don’t make him look good. He attacks polls that find him trailing as to approval or chances of winning against other candidates. He attacks media, even Fox News, for broadcasting information that’s anything other than totally flattering to him. His goal was attention and praise, and he will fight anyone who tries to deny him these things. That should be clear as a bell to anyone paying attention. His arrogance is nauseating, and as he continues failing, and as the economy goes through the inevitable correction that is on the horizon and for which there are clear signs, look for more melt-downs. It is sad and pathetic, but a predictable product of his serious mental illness. It is becoming less and less defensible as anything else. The rest of the world knows it, too.

        No, Paul, the expectation that the POTUS will rise to the office, driven by patriotism and not personal adulation, aren’t enshrined in the Constitution, but they do exist.

    3. more boring, off topic, anti trump drivel. couched in addressing “Jon” as if she were friends

      this is SPAM

  11. Trump attacks his enemas. Bernie is the enemy of the people. Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government and armed forces. JFK porked Marilyn at the White House. Don’t change Dicks in the middle of a screw, vote for Nixon in ’72! All the Way With LBJ! Obama was born in Kenya. Fake News has its base in NY. The second Holocaust is coming down the road. Send the Gang of Four back. My boomerang won’t come back.

Comments are closed.