Trump lashes out at Fox News over latest poll

[Syne]

I'm not offended, Syne.

Did you answer the question? Or does comparing Trump favorably to anyone run the risk of you losing some allies?

I may have stated this on SF, but I like Trump's ideas on foreign policy, and the economy is doing seemingly well. Not 100% sure if that's due to his administration or not, so I say ...seemingly. I don't respect Trump as a person, though. 

lol I don't have allies. This is just the internet, Syne. 

I will say to you, be careful about your allegiances, as well. I'm sometimes surprised by guys especially, who come off as principled, yet turn a blind eye to Trump's unprincipled behaviors. Defending him at all costs, sometimes. Not everything is ''fake news,'' or media embellishment. Trump is a narcissistic jerk.

You probably mentioned that here, but I just forgot.

I respect Trump for what he accomplishes, not for his personal life, manner, or Twitter feed. Being principled doesn't mean being a martyr and refusing good things just because of the source. That would be like foregoing baths because the "evil Romans" used to take them. But the mainstream media is completely biased, and this has been proven many times over, with studies and blatant examples. Don't let your distaste for Trump cause you to discount all his criticisms out of hand.

---

Trump attacks anything he doesn't like, regardless of the source

I think that President Trump will attack anyone that he thinks is attacking him. He returns fire and I like that. It's time that the rest of us stop being the radical-left's punching-bags.   

I completely agree. While I wouldn't do it as "shoot from the hip", fast and loose with the facts, as he does, I do have to give him credit for playing the media and his opposition like a fiddle. Hell, even left of moderate democrats are now the far left's punching bag...including Pelosi and Ellen Pompeo being called racist.

although I do assume it's because he is insecure or an obsessive self-promoter.

I would prefer not to get into amateur psychoanalysis. The reason why I voted for Trump in 2016 and why I intend to vote for him in 2020 (provided that somebody better doesn't appear) isn't his personality, it's because I agree with him on most of the issues. In fact, Trump is the first Presidential candidate in recent memory that actually spoke to my issues and concerns. Obama didn't, Romney didn't, McCain didn't, GW Bush didn't, Kerry didn't, Gore didn't...

Trump's brilliance was recognizing that half the country was simply being ignored by the mainstream-media and the beltway elites. Trump spoke to those people and listened to them. And as a result he was elected President. It's what allowed him to peel off a big segment of the traditionally Democratic white lower-middle class and how he breached the Democrats' much-vaunted blue-wall and took the Midwest. Hillary didn't even campaign in many of those places and botched her message when she did.

Not trying to diagnose anything, just my impression. Nothing wrong with a go-getter self-promoter. I would have voted for Trump, had I known that he wasn't just playing conservative to get elected. Now that I do, I will be voting for him, because, like you, he does speak to my issues, probably more than anyone since Reagan.

Considering what polls said leading up to 2016 and the fact that he now has the highest approval rating of his presidency (on par with Obama leading up to his reelection), he probably doesn't need to worry.

That was Trump's point with Fox. In 2016 almost all of the media polls (including Fox's) showed Hillary with an almost certain lock on winning. Except... it didn't happen that way. So instead of admitting that their pollling methodology was faulty, most of the media leaped to the conclusion that the Russians had somehow... done something (nobody says exactly what). And the conspiracy-theory madness was off and running. With the CIA's John Brennan and the FBI's James Comey pulling strings behind the scenes to ensure that an investigation was started that hopefully would find something on Trump... anything... to bring him down.

Yeah, the journalists trying to protect their fragile egos, instead of simply admitting they'd got it wrong and learn from it.
And there was definitely something to the "deep state".

And considering his recent strategy to get Pelosi who AOC had just called racist, to defend the extremists in her party...basically making them the face of the party, he may just be sly enough to capitalize on free publicity...

The Democratic Presidential candidates are doing that all by themselves. They all seem to feel that they can't win the Democratic primaries unless they appeal directly to the Democratic party activist base. So pretty much all of them talk as if America's biggest priorities need to be open borders, amnesty for illegals and normalizing transvestites. Trump's smart enough to see that while that kind of talk will receive ecstatic responses in LA, SF and NYC (places that would have gone Democratic anyway), it isn't going to play so well with socially conservative traditionally-Democratic white lower-middle-class voters in places like the Midwest.

Precisely the people who were the solid Democratic party voter base for more than a century, up until maybe 20 years ago. Now the base seems to be Hollywood celebrities, racial minorities, feminists, media and educational elites, government employees, environmental activists and a host of special-interest activist constituencies like that. It's a dramatic reorientation of the Democratic party away from what it historically was. So Democratic candidates juggle furiously to keep enough of the new constituencies happy and supporting them.

Obviously once one of the Democratic candidates wins the nomination, he or she will try to slide to the center and present him/herself as a reasonable moderate. But everything that they are saying now demonstrates that they aren't moderates at all.

So once again, Trump seems to be rope-a-doping his opponents, letting their own rhetoric be the basis of his own campaign. Their expressions of hatred for Trump, for his voters and for those voters' issues and concerns isn't going to persuade many of them to cross over and vote Democrat this time.

True, they're all campaigning to the activist Twitteroti. The problem is that many of the activist's priorities are at odds with one another. So "juggle" is very apt. Show too much attention/agreement to one and you drop some other, much needed, voters. They've made their tent so small that they desperately need every constituent they have.

All the Trump campaign needs to do is recycle sound bites from the Democrat primary to win. They failed to make it a referendum on Trump, so now he gets to make it a referendum on their own extremists.

[C C]

Biden is looking pretty good
if some swing states start to talk him up then he will surely roll swing voters if the dems come out to turn up and vote.

He seems to be the Great Progressive Hope. Especially since, as Maher pointed out below, much of the rest of cast favors being a circus attraction. Seeking to score immediate gratification points in social media by performing freakish stunts, but which often doesn't amount to a garden row of mustard in the physically interactive world when it comes crunch time.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/03/opinions/...index.html

EXCERPT: Bill Maher closed his show on Friday night with a warning to Democrats: "All the Democrats have to do to win is to come off less crazy than Trump — and, of course, they're blowing it, coming across as unserious people who are going to take away all your money so migrants from Honduras can go to college for free...."

While Maher admitted he wasn't particularly enthusiastic about Joe Biden, he reminded viewers that the former Vice President is the only Democrat who can beat Trump in Ohio. Comparing him to non-dairy creamer, Maher joked, "nobody loves it but in a jam it gets the job done."

Maher captures the essential promise of the Biden campaign: he can win against Trump. Never mind the lack of excitement among many voters, or the struggle to concisely articulate what his campaign is about, this thinking goes. He might not be a perfect politician, but a Biden presidency would be better than a another four years of President Trump. The sentiment appears to serve as the foundation for Biden's continued strength at the polls, where he consistently does much better than all his opponents, as well as Trump.

For now, all he has to do is stay the course, promise to defend the Obama legacy, and "come off less crazy than Trump," or so the argument goes. This is the big bet that many Democrats are willing to make as they double down on a candidate who has delivered a less than stellar performance thus far. Facing an incumbent president with relatively strong economic numbers and united party support, Biden Democrats are hoping to beat the odds and make Trump a one-termer in the tradition of Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush.

[...] Democrats have by no means an easy road to victory. It's not enough to present a candidate as the opposite of Trump. Democrats need to assemble a formidable campaign with a candidate who can shine on the campaign trail, sidestep damaging mistakes, present a rousing vision, and offer better solutions than the rage-machine in the Oval Office. It might be that former Vice President Biden is that candidate. But playing it safe will not be enough, and doing so could very well cost Democrats the White House.

[Syne]

Hoover followed two Republican Presidents and H.W. followed one. The only precedent for a one-termer after the opposing party held office is Carter, a democrat. The only time one democrat has followed another, since the Republican party existed, is when a VP succeeded and was subsequently elected. So there's no historical precedent for Trump being a one-term president...just like there was no historical precedent for a Hillary win.

And while Biden is definitely the best hope democrats have, the far left has already given Trump all the ammo he needs in a general election. Not to mention Biden's constant faux pas and history that puts him on the wrong side of BLM, MeToo, etc.. The democrats have already made the mistake of making this election about socialism, so instead of it being a referendum on Trump, it's a referendum on their own failed polices...including them attacking Biden by way of Obama. You can't come back from that.

[Magical Realist]

I hate Donald Trump with a passion. I actually mute my TV every time I see him about to speak. I hated him before he ran for president and was pushing that birther shit about Obama. And I hate him even more now. I hate his continuous lying. I hate his embarrassing ignorance and stupidity. I hate his bigotry. I hate his babyish narcissism. And I hate his petty personal attacks on Twitter. Trump has lowered the bar so low on who can be president now that I don't care who replaces him. Not exactly thrilled about Joe, but he is definitely 100% better than Trump. If he can actually win, I'm voting for him. And I'm pretty sure there are alot out there like me.

[Syne]

Lots or talk, but no examples.

Democrats have been calling Republicans racist, fascist, etc. since the 60s. That's who "lowered the bar so low". And now you're whining that someone actually pushes back against those unsupported ad hominems. That's what a Republican sinking to the level of Democrats looks like.

[billvon]

Lots or talk, but no examples.

Democrats have been calling Republicans racist, fascist, etc. since the 60s. That's who "lowered the bar so low". And now you're whining that someone actually pushes back against those unsupported ad hominems. 

Well, 'cept now white supremacists (Trump's 'very fine people') are actually murdering people.  On average, hate crimes go up 226% in any county that has a Trump rally.  Overall, right wing terrorism is the fastest growing terrorist threat in the US.  

So now there's proof of that racism outside of Trump's words.

[Secular Sanity]

I hate Donald Trump with a passion. I actually mute my TV every time I see him about to speak. I hated him before he ran for president and was pushing that birther shit about Obama. And I hate him even more now. I hate his continuous lying. I hate his embarrassing ignorance and stupidity. I hate his bigotry. I hate his babyish narcissism. And I hate his petty personal attacks on Twitter. Trump has lowered the bar so low on who can be president now that I don't care who replaces him. Not exactly thrilled about Joe, but he is definitely 100% better than Trump. If he can actually win, I'm voting for him. And I'm pretty sure there are alot out there like me.

I voted for Trump for personal reasons. We were allowed to address the new assistant deputy with our concerns. When asked about Benghazi, he said it was the lack of communication between two entities. 

They should have never been there in the first place.

Every parent’s nightmare.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/3Nu6VZ9DeVc

[Syne]

Lots or talk, but no examples.

Democrats have been calling Republicans racist, fascist, etc. since the 60s. That's who "lowered the bar so low". And now you're whining that someone actually pushes back against those unsupported ad hominems. 

Well, 'cept now white supremacists (Trump's 'very fine people') are actually murdering people.  On average, hate crimes go up 226% in any county that has a Trump rally.  Overall, right wing terrorism is the fastest growing terrorist threat in the US.  

So now there's proof of that racism outside of Trump's words.

Except Trump actually said:

"...you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.....I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.
...
Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

IOW, either you swallowed a lie, hook, line, and sinker, or you're incapable of parsing the fact that he said there were very fine people on both sides of the issue of taking down confederate statues...not at that particular protest. Hint, not everyone who wants to keep historic statues, and the reminder of a fraught past that can be an ongoing teaching tool, is racist. In that exact same speech, he essentially said the same thing he just said about racism in El Paso.

The Anti-Defamation League’s data your 226% comes from is heavily weighted by people simply spreading propaganda. And it's the media that's eager to give them the spotlight any time they can make Trump out to be guilt by tenuous association alone. Without that media attention, we wouldn't hear about these groups and they wouldn't find it as easy to recruit others.

But I seriously doubt you give a shit about facts.


The Dayton shooter was a self-vowed leftist and atheist.

[billvon]

Except Trump actually said:

"...you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.....I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.
...
Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Let's see where you got that statement.

The first statement, about "very fine people on both sides", was made Aug 15th at Trump Tower.  Then you had an ellipsis - a few dots indicating you deleted some irrelevant material and moved on to something he said later in that speech.  Then you have a second ellipsis.  But in fact the "racism is evil" statement was something he read from a prepared document in a different place the day before.  So it's not a continuation of something he said, contrary to your claim.  It's not even on the same day.

Nice try, though!  You might have caught some of the people out there who just read without verifying.  Now that you've been caught in a lie, would you like to try a different approach?

It is indeed funny that you claim to post what "Trump actually said" and then distort it.

[Syne]

Except Trump actually said:

"...you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.....I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.
...
Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

Let's see where you got that statement.

The first statement, about "very fine people on both sides", was made Aug 15th at Trump Tower.  Then you had an ellipsis - a few dots indicating you deleted some irrelevant material and moved on to something he said later in that speech.  Then you have a second ellipsis.  But in fact the "racism is evil" statement was something he read from a prepared document in a different place the day before.  So it's not a continuation of something he said, contrary to your claim.  It's not even on the same day.

Nice try, though!  You might have caught some of the people out there who just read without verifying.  Now that you've been caught in a lie, would you like to try a different approach?

It is indeed funny that you claim to post what "Trump actually said" and then distort it.

Here they are, in context:

“Racism is evil and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white-supremacist and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear,” he said in an August 14 statement. - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...so/595492/



On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastructure permitting. Reporters shortly began asking questions about Trump’s initial response to violent protests in Charlottesville, Va. It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
...
We wanted to look at Trump’s comments in their original context. Here is a transcript of the questions Trump answered that addressed the Charlottesville controversy in the days after it happened.
...
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
...
I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally." - https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter...s-remarks/

So yes, in the exact same press conference, he said both that there were fine people who simply didn't want the statue taken down and that "white nationalists...should be condemned totally". Learn to parse simple English, or read the context further than simply affirming your biased preconception. It only took me posting the other quote which more closely echos his El Paso comments for you to pretend he didn't condemn white nationalists at all in the exact same "very fine people" press conference.

You're just that eager to deny the facts or mislead others. You're going to have to do better than that around here.