President Trump

[mpare]

There's only one "genius" in the President's unique stable. He's in a class by himself. As for her statement, she was correct in calling his remarks racist.

The Dems are collapsing, Pelosi violated House rules today to virtue signal. Stable genius.

[pudubny]

So it's only bad when David Duke "endorses" (even though he said he couldnt endorse) Trump, but when he endorses a Dempcrat then there is nothing to see here.. I should have expected much. I guess it is par for the course, especially from a party who's former but recent leadership (Obama, Hillary) embraced Byrd.

I did not say that, but I think Duke is on board with much of Trump's agenda aside from a couple of issues. And those issues are more important to him than Omar's.
Duke has said things like this at Charlottesville,
"This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump," later, "That’s what we believed in, that’s why we voted for Donald Trump because he said he’s going to take our country back and that’s what we’re going to do."
It is clear that Duke sees Trump as crucial to his own goals. Of course Trump and the "both sides" comments help.
As for Duke and Omar. Duke is taking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. That much is clear, it's pretty obvious Omar is not keen with Duke's greater agenda, nor would Duke support much of anything Omar wants. But he loves it when anyone criticizes Israel or Jews.
He supports one for the greater platform, the other on a single issue. I don't equate those.
I assume you are referring to Robert Byrd. I think later in his career Byrd became a civil rights champion. Nobody can excuse his early career but many civil rights leaders acknowledged Byrd's contribution later in life. Has Duke renounced his racists views to make this a similar situation?

[SeanAvery2point0]

There's only one "genius" in the President's unique stable. He's in a class by himself. As for her statement, she was correct in calling his remarks racist.

It was the first time since 1984 that a House Speaker was ruled out of order.

[SeanAvery2point0]

I did not say that, but I think Duke is on board with much of Trump's agenda aside from a couple of issues. And those issues are more important to him than Omar's.
Duke has said things like this at Charlottesville,
"This represents a turning point for the people of this country. We are determined to take our country back. We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump," later, "That’s what we believed in, that’s why we voted for Donald Trump because he said he’s going to take our country back and that’s what we’re going to do."
It is clear that Duke sees Trump as crucial to his own goals. Of course Trump and the "both sides" comments help.
As for Duke and Omar. Duke is taking "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" approach. That much is clear, it's pretty obvious Omar is not keen with Duke's greater agenda, nor would Duke support much of anything Omar wants. But he loves it when anyone criticizes Israel or Jews.
He supports one for the greater platform, the other on a single issue. I don't equate those.
I assume you are referring to Robert Byrd. I think later in his career Byrd became a civil rights champion. Nobody can excuse his early career but many civil rights leaders acknowledged Byrd's contribution later in life. Has Duke renounced his racists views to make this a similar situation?

Mental gymnastics. David Duke either requires disavowal from everybody he endorses or nobody he endorses. Quit making excuses when it is a Democrat. Byrd was a grand wizard, if you can forgive that it says a lot.

[mpare]

This gets you in a tizzy while you cheerfully run cover for the daily nastiness spewed by the vile creature, who plays at being the President. Amazing.

It was the first time since 1984 that a House Speaker was ruled out of order.

[ManFromMoffat]

Putting aside the acrimony in this thread, the comments from the "leader of the free world" are unprecedented.

Every other living President must be absolutely ashamed of what Trump is saying and the affect it has on the country and also to the office of the President of the United States. It can take hundreds of years to grow a forest and one careless match to take it all down. An analogy that fits in my view.

The country has had weak or less than successful Presidents (just as we have had a range of quality at the PM job) but nobody has destroyed the reputation of that office in such a short period of time. And I say that acknowledging the problems, shall we say, with Watergate and Monica Lewinsky.

Obama to Trump is like class to trash.

That's well put.

Up until now, you could be left or right, Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat... but no matter which side, once elected the leader put much of the partisan nastiness aside and got on with the business of governing and leading.

There's never been anyone even remotely like Trump before. Mean, petty, vindictive, dispiriting. A nation can be lifted by a good leader, but we've never before seen a nation humiliated, debased, brought down and turned stupid and hostile the way this one has.

Lifting up every - or as many as you can - citizen to strive to be better, to achieve more as individuals and as communities and a nation. This is what a great leader can and should do to make his/her country great. Again.

Trump debases the office of President as much as Nixon did with Watergate, or Clinton did with Lewinsky and he does it daily. It's stunning to look at old footage of either of those - or Bush or Carter or Ford or LBJ or Obama and see how low he's gone.

These latest series of tweets are a new low, but we're used to that. He seems to reach a new one each month.

I remain optimistic that a different leader could bring things back to normal very quickly.

Two excellent posts. I hope the belief of things being brought back to normal very quickly is warranted and that it happens sooner rather than later. A scarier thought might be to ask: would a Rump win in 2020 put the U.S. past some tipping point?

When I think about all this, I start by wondering what it is about being a Senator or Representative that would make one abandon one's principles. I suppose the power and fame/notoriety must play some part and then there's always the money. It's got to be a fairly cushy existence while in office but the (legal) payoff comes later.

Call me biased and/or naive but I'd like to think that Democratic primary voters would never elect a scumbag like Rump in the first place. If they did, I trust the Dem pols would have the balls to back an impeachment.

(Whatabouters: We're so, so, so far beyond a President doing the nasty (ok, maybe not "sexual relations" ) with an intern.)

[ManFromMoffat]

Anyone post a link to George Conway's op-ed? If not:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-trump-is-a-racist-president/2019/07/15/b13c0bd4-a740-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html?utm_term=.f707aa2c0904

[pudubny]

Mental gymnastics. David Duke either requires disavowal from everybody he endorses or nobody he endorses. Quit making excuses when it is a Democrat. Byrd was a grand wizard, if you can forgive that it says a lot.

You seem to want to start a "disavow" olympics. I don't keep score that way. I see how much the far right loves and supports Trump. That should concern anyone. Trump disavows them but hires their enablers (Bannon) and uses their same talking points. Today Trump had this response as reported by CNN,
"On Monday Trump was asked if he was concerned that white nationalists were finding common cause with him because of his racist attack on the women.
Trump responded: "It doesn't concern me because many people agree with me. And all I'm saying, they want to leave, they can leave.""
twitter erupted with right wing nutjobs. No apology, no concern for what the public response will be.
I am sure if anyone asks Omar about David Duke she would not be kind. I don't think anyone wants to give more oxygen to Duke. Trump didn't disavow Duke until asked. If you want to preach that Omar and David Duke are campaigning together, go ahead, I'm sure you can find some friends on infowars who would agree with you.
As for Byrd, he left the KKK in the 1940's and had this to say about his past,
"know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened"
Even the NAACP commented on his commitment to civil rights in the second half of his career. He endorsed Obama early, don't know how a KKK member could do that. Duke is still an active and vocal member, he loves Trump, loved what he said today.
We just don't agree these are equal situations.

[mpare]

Perfectly expressed by Mr. Conway.

Anyone post a link to George Conway's op-ed? If not:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-conway-trump-is-a-racist-president/2019/07/15/b13c0bd4-a740-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html?utm_term=.f707aa2c0904

[SeanAvery2point0]

You seem to want to start a "disavow" olympics. I don't keep score that way. I see how much the far right loves and supports Trump. That should concern anyone. Trump disavows them but hires their enablers (Bannon) and uses their same talking points. Today Trump had this response as reported by CNN,
"On Monday Trump was asked if he was concerned that white nationalists were finding common cause with him because of his racist attack on the women.
Trump responded: "It doesn't concern me because many people agree with me. And all I'm saying, they want to leave, they can leave.""
twitter erupted with right wing nutjobs. No apology, no concern for what the public response will be.
I am sure if anyone asks Omar about David Duke she would not be kind. I don't think anyone wants to give more oxygen to Duke. Trump didn't disavow Duke until asked. If you want to preach that Omar and David Duke are campaigning together, go ahead, I'm sure you can find some friends on infowars who would agree with you.
As for Byrd, he left the KKK in the 1940's and had this to say about his past,
"know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don’t mind apologizing over and over again. I can’t erase what happened"
Even the NAACP commented on his commitment to civil rights in the second half of his career. He endorsed Obama early, don't know how a KKK member could do that. Duke is still an active and vocal member, he loves Trump, loved what he said today.
We just don't agree these are equal situations.

I don't want to start anything. I just expect members of this board who ferociously attack Trump daily for such things would also attack Democrats when the shoe is on the other foot. I guess that's an unrealistic expectation.

to quote Cathy Newman "so what you're saying is" that it's not David Duke's endorsement that is the problem, but rather a subjective analysis of what or who he is endorsing? Since he only agrees with Omar on hating Israel his endorsement is acceptable?

Your logic on Byrd is flawed. There are lots of people who have changed and tried to distance themselves from their pasts who are held in contempt by the public. The South, by and large has changed, yet they're still referred to as deplorables, by both members of this board and public figures. Do you think white people should be held responsible for the history of slavery and segregation, even though that position is now only held by a minority on the fringes of society? Will you award them the same forgiveness as Byrd?

[SeanAvery2point0]

This gets you in a tizzy while you cheerfully run cover for the daily nastiness spewed by the vile creature, who plays at being the President. Amazing.

So acting 'out of order', or acting worse than is expected, only applies to the office of the President? It's acceptable for members of Congress to trash the President but not okay when the President trashes members of Congress?

That's inconsistent at best

[Guruhead]

I think Trump tweets are a clever way of distracting people from his true flaws.

[par345]

So acting 'out of order', or acting worse than is expected, only applies to the office of the President? It's acceptable for members of Congress to trash the President but not okay when the President trashes members of Congress?

That's inconsistent at best

desperate false equivalency whataboutism on steroids

[mpare]

Ms. Pelosi's characterization of Trump' tweet could not be characterized as "racist" under the House rules, which it was. However, the House voted in favour of condemning Trump's tweet, presumably because they recognized its odious nature. Also, with the support of the House, Pelosi's remarks were not struck from the record. As for whether she "trashed" the President, I would argue that she did no such thing. He did that all by himself.

So acting 'out of order', or acting worse than is expected, only applies to the office of the President? It's acceptable for members of Congress to trash the President but not okay when the President trashes members of Congress?

That's inconsistent at best

[Bellyhungry]

What we have here is a classic case of:

'We can explain it to you, but we can't understand for you.'

Additionally, there's the toddler syndrome:

'IT IS NOT FAIR, how come Johnny can do it and I can't?'

and

'WHAT ABOUT Suzy? she did it too.'