Trump ‘ A Cross Between Nixon And Tony Soprano’?

[Zacs-Master]

More corruption proven around POTUS. Shame!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/21/donald-trump-paul-manafort-michael-cohen-tony-soprano

[naomi24]

Jim, //To be fair, it's hard to keep up with your arbitrary and unjustified decisions examples whether to support Trump or not. //

But you’re not fair because support or condemnation shouldn’t be allotted on the basis that you either like someone or you don’t, which is what you do. If Trump found a cure for cancer you’d condemn him because such is your animosity that you find it impossible to assess him objectively, and hence rationally isn’t a consideration. You hate him and that’s that.

//He's been implicated in a criminal act by his former lawyer, while another of his former aides also turns out to have been a crook. Why defend him on those charges?//

I haven’t defended him but IF he is actually ‘charged’, depending on my assessment at the time, I’ll either defend him or otherwise. I don’t trust the Guardian’s propaganda – their headline is enough to expose their agenda. I'll await further information.

[Zacs-Master]

Well, this has gone the way I thought it would i.e. his supporters blindly backing him despite the sheer number of facts and accusations.

[Zacs-Master]

'when he's upsetting TROB this much he must be doing something right!'

That's a Trumpism if ever I heard one.

[jim360]

Interesting. Every word in your post was wrong, Naomi.

[jim360]

Let's just be clear: you are utterly wrong about how I evaluate what Trump says. You can argue with that all you like for all I care -- you will always be wrong. The only difference between us is that I judge him fairly and find him wanting rather more often.

Also, here are a couple of other sources, rather harder to accuse of being biased against Trump...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/22/cohen-more-than-happy-to-talk-to-mueller-and-say-all-that-knows-lawyer-says.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/08/21/manafort-guilty-verdicts-will-put-new-pressure-on-him-to-cooperate-with-mueller-s-russia-probe.html

[Ellipsis]

[jim360]

Thanks Ellipsis, that's exactly what I was thinking of :)

[Ellipsis]

Phew, I was worried it might have been this one ;) ...

[jno]

If Trump found a cure for cancer

let's cross that bridge when we come to it, shall we?

[youngmafbog]

"Interesting. Every word in your post was wrong, Naomi."

Wow, just wow. You really are blinded by hatred. Every word ??

[jim360]

Everything Naomi said about me and how I evaluate Trump is completely and utterly wrong. I don't see how that supports an accusation of blindness, by hate or otherwise.

[Kromovaracun]

I can't think of a time I've ever seen Jim write something that could be construed as 'hateful.' What do you expect to happen when someone starts making assertions about your personal motivations and thought processes?

[ichkeria]

I hesitate to speak for jim, but surely he's criticising Trump on the basis that even his own lawyer has accused him of breaking the law (!)
By contrast, and I have said this before, but it sometimes seems to me that Trump could be found guilty of baby boiling and god knows what and he'd still get cheered on by some for annoying the people they don't like
Trump has done very few things I personally approve of: one was his action in Syria, although looking back it seems it was more a case of wanting to not be like Obama ...

[jim360]

Allow me to put it another way: Naomi is perfectly entitled to defend Trump when she chooses, even if I wish there were some more reasoning behind those decisions and even if I disagree with those choices.

What she is *not* entitled to do is to make up rubbish about how *I* reach my decisions, which I can assure you have been based on evidence rather than hatred. I don't like Trump as a person or as a president, it is true, but I had hoped that you, at least, ymb, might have more respect for me than to believe that I would just need to see "Trump" in a sentence for the red mist to descend, regardless of the actual content.

Every one of my criticisms of Trump -- and there are a lot of them -- can be backed up by evidence. And by evidence I don't just mean "Guardian Articles" either.

[naomi24]

Crikey, the pitch forks are in full flow. There’s a surprise. ;o)

Jim, //What she is *not* entitled to do is to make up rubbish about how *I* reach my decisions,…

Careful, you’re sounding like someone else … but that aside, I don’t make things up and in this case it wouldn’t be necessary anyway.

…//which I can assure you have been based on evidence rather than hatred//

I’ve had a quick shufty through a few of your posts, Jim…. It didn’t take much effort.

//He admires strong men and seeks to emulate them, that much is clear.//

What evidence? I asked at the time who he seeks to emulate. No answer.

//It's kind of clear that Trump was more interested in winning the presidency than in actually being president//

What evidence?

Your comments on Trump’s relationship with David Duke are particularly interesting - accurately described by another poster as “a beautiful example of spin”. Too lengthy to copy and re-post – but they’re there.

And then this popped up:

///Can anyone think of what else POTUS stands for…. "

I'd got as far as "Piece of totally useless..." but couldn't think of a word beginning with S to finish that off.//

And this gem from you on a wish for a US recession:

// I personally would go further. I don't just hope that the economy collapses, I want *society* to collapse too. Riots in the streets, civil war, looting, total breakdown of law and order. People dying in the open air, as war breaks out within and without and blood runs through the fields of a once-great country. Brothers fight brothers, fathers kill their sons, children starving through it all. Wars break out without and within, until at least no-one is left alive who was grateful for president Trump. Then I'll be there, laughing at the smouldering ruins, tutting "I told you so", with triumph like a fire in in my eyes as I dance on the grave of the American Dream.//

Back to today: //Naomi is perfectly entitled to defend Trump when she chooses, even if I wish there were some more reasoning behind those decisions//

Oh, there’s reasoning behind my decisions and plenty of it. You very clearly hate Trump with a vengeance – and I would defend anyone who found themselves falling foul of such appallingly spiteful vitriol…. even you.

[DTCwordfan]

He can't be got on a criminal charge - he's the Pres. The only way is impeachment and what does that require - well two key stages

(i) impeachment - majority in the House of Reps
(ii) trial and majority in the Senate.

Current situation: With 248 seats in the House of Representatives and 54 seats in the Senate, this Congress began with the largest Republican majority since the 71st Congress of 1929–1931.

Not a cat in hell's chance - lots of hot air and pontification all around - trebles please.

[hereIam]

Some on here despise Trump, some think he should be given a chance and some get sick to death of all the name calling! Guess which camp I'm in ... sick to death of all the name calling! I don't believe all the lies told about him, there I've said it ... It's a consequence of being in power, sadly.

[jim360]

There's a difference between not replying to your questions and not having evidence. I will happily, however, back up all of my assertions, if you are interested in seeing me do so.

I also reject the accusations of "spin", since everything I said about Trump and Duke were based on directly quoting Trump verbatim. It's difficult to call verbatim, full quotes "spin", by anyone's dictionary.

No, in the long run, you are simply wrong about me and how I come to my opinions. I am not surprised that you stick to your guns, but they are as usual pointing at the wrong target.

[andy-hughes]

Nixon and Tony Soprano?

I've always thought of him as a cross between Boris Johnson and Dougal from the Magic Roundabout!!

[jim360]

Oh, and I just reached the end of your last post. I'm staggered that you thought that the post you've quoted was being serious! That I'd dance on someone's grave... seriously?!

It's called "satire". I am afraid I can't remember the name of the host of one of the US's many late-night shows -- Jimmy Kimmel, perhaps, or the other one, Billy something? -- but the context was that they argued that perhaps a recession would expose Trump as a fraud and cause his support to drop away. It's a pretty stupid wish, and I satirised that by taking it to stupid extremes.

That is only evidence of your mistaking satire for seriousness. While I'm at it, the one above that is called "a joke". You might not have found it funny, but that's how it was intended.