Trump has been exposing hypocrisy and cover-ups since at least the 1980's, when he took out center page ads. Only recently have my eyes opened to his sense of humor, his cleverness, and his refreshing lack of decorum. "So Trump is just throwing gasoline on a fire here, and he’s having fun watching the flames — and he’s having fun watching these holier-than-thou leftist journalists react like their moral sensibilities have been forever rocked and can never recover." Rush nailed it. As always, Erick, you are open and accepting to other viewpoints...much appreciated! https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-praises-president-being-clever-sharing-conspiracy-theories
Rush, in his last years, on his knees worshipping a false god in Trump, who would discard him in a second if he spoke against the man. Trump is of poor character, and has always been. Character is destiny, and one day, he will get his just rewards. But now those who gleefully justify his pettiness, vulgarity, and casual lying as a strategy are wandering in the desert, because they are truly lost. What we are witnessing is evil. Those who won't bear witness against it, turn their back on God.
My perspective is that both President Trump and the insane Leftist media are overexposing themselves. I prefer to turn on classical music or watch wonderful Anna Fedorova play the piano on You Tube. What will become of our USA? People need rest to think calmly and critically, and we certainly are not enabled for that by the mainstream media.
I tune in occasionally to Rush. But not nearly as much as I used to. He said something yesterday or the day before that has me convinced he's gone over the edge. I'm paraphrasing here but it was to the effect that "the coronavirus was a conspiracy of the world to destroy the U.S. economy in order to get rid of Trump." That these state actors "surprised themselves at how well it worked."
I understand Rush is in the entertainment business but geez.
I have friends who have undergone significant chemo treatments for cancer. There's a malady known as "chemo brain". I'm hoping some of the stuff coming out of Rush is related to the questionable judgements one makes when undergoing chemo.
Trump does say some things that should not be said. The 2016 comment about Ted Cruz's father was one of the worst cases. But the pattern of Trump's targets for outrageous remarks are typically people who have first attacked him with false accusations, with Cruz being one exception. In my opinion, this was because Trump's target was more the Never Trump Cruz supporters who had no qualms about maliciously bashing Trump to defeat him politically. Among them was a Cruz supporting PAC who published a nude photo of Melania from her time as a model over a decade before. This enraged Trump just like Erick got enraged by a set of Trump supporters who wrongly threatened his family. Scarborough is among the media sources who bashes Trump for anything and everything from being a traitor to killing 100K people with the Corona virus. Trump has an "eye-for-an-eye" philosophy and even if that is not "turn the other cheek" Christianity, he is far from the only person who responds to "evil with evil." That doesn't make it right, but it does suggest that Trump's unjust attacks have to be judged in the context of the targets who nearly always have unjustly attacked him first.
I find it interesting that the super pac that spawned the 'Melania campaign' in support of Cruz later turned out - after Cruz dropped-out - in support of Trump. Robert Mercer and his daughter shifted their money to support the Trump campaign, bringing KellyAnn Conway along for the ride.
Apparently, Trump's outrage at the despicable tactic of using Melania was put aside when enough money was involved - like every other politician.
As for Trump's reprisals being justified...? President Trump has always responded with, what to me, seems like a middle school boy mentality. His taunts and jabs on Twitter smack more of "nah,nah, boo-boo" than a mature, confident man that is leader of the most powerful country on earth. His rebuttals are inarticulate and mostly deals in innuendo, and snark. He should have listened to Melania when she cautioned him to be more 'presidential'. He is his own worst enemy.
I didn't say Trump's reprisal was justified. I said Trump responds negatively to people who attack him first - and clearly Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezenski fall into that category. Can you name anybody who Trump attacked who hasn't attacked him first, with the exception of possibly Ted Cruz?
Political battles are often nasty and very many people are guilty of less than ideal behavior. For example, do you support or oppose Hillary Clinton's characterization of "half of Trump's supporters [as a] basket of deplorables"? There are clearly many false criticisms of Trump that have been repeatedly endlessly for the past 4 years. Do you admit this? Or is it only Trump's statements that you attack?
Politics is both an individual sport and a team game. Lots of people who opposed Biden are now supporting him. Some of his primary competitors who heavily criticized him are now vying to be his vice President. Trump and Cruz were arguably the two most conservative candidates in the 2016 primary. After it was clear that Cruz would not win, it was clearly logical for his supporters to shift to Trump, who was clearly a better candidate from their perspective than Hillary.
I am not a fan of the Clintons so I definitely have issues with her statements. Even though I did not support Trump's election but I was not opposed to it.
I have family members that support President Trump - people that are intelligent, use-to-be-liberals, and so far from deplorable it's off the charts. I love and respect them and felt like they deserved to have the president they voted for.
I understand folks frustration and anger over the unfair practices of the media with Trump, it's been a revelation. I certainly did not mean any disrespect to you or your support of a man you obviously believe in.
From what I've seen here, you conduct yourself respectfully with kindness; you deserve the same back.
Thanks for a clarifying response. I have no objection to people opposing Trump's political policies, or his history of sexual immorality, or the forceful way he responds to his attackers. What I object to is people who bash everything Trump does in a relentless barrage that has gone on for the last 4 years. Your clarifying comment suggests to me that you do not belong to that group. I would love to have a polite discussion with you about what you like or don't like about Trump's policies and/or behavior.
It is possible to agree to disagree without using negative labels like deplorables, or racist, or Nazi, that are often applied not only to Trump but to any of his supporters. I am not a fan of name calling as in my opinion it accomplishes nothing of value other than getting twitter acclaim. I don't mind criticism of Trump's counter punching tweets. But I consistently ask people evaluate it in the context of Trump being constantly bashed from nearly half the country, who consider him somewhere between Hitler and Satan, and perhaps worse than that.
I am not sure what you mean by Scarborough being dead. It was a female intern who died during his term as a FL Congressmen, as in this quote from a Tuesday Hill article: "[Lori] Klausutis, who had an undiagnosed heart condition, fell and hit her head at work in 2001 and was found dead the following morning. Scarborough was in Washington at the time and the medical examiner ruled her death an accident.
Scarborough is very much alive. This is his tweet from today quoting a WSJ article; "“100,000 people in the U.S. have died from the new coronavirus. Experts say official totals likely understate the extent of the pandemic, in part because of limited & differing testing capabilities in the U.S. and around the world.” I don't follow Scarborough, but I suspect he is among many media sources who unjustly blame Trump for the Corona deaths. From what I have heard, Scarborugh and his co-host wife Mike Brzezenski regularly bash Trump with what I believe are an endless onslaught of false accusations.
My family use to watch them, my husband still does. In my opinion,Joe and Mika go beyond 'bashin' the President. They speculate, postulate and offer their opinions as if their opinions are something more. I am sad to admit that they have ventured into territory that is defamatory. I suspect they know that it will drive Trump to tweet something in rebuttal, which will give them something to mock the next morning. It seems to have become a vicious, if not ridiculously blatant tactic.
You have your opinion about Joe and Mika. Lots of people have an opposing opinion. Joe and Mika are clearly part of a media heavily biased for the Democrats and heavily opposed to Trump. They and their media colleagues have attacked Trump endlessly for the past 4 years. They can cry and whine because Trump attacks them back. But the only people Trump is perpetually at war with are those who are perpetually at war with him. For example, Trump has positive relationships with nearly all the Republican Senator(with the exception of Romney) and he has about 95% support among Republicans. The bulk of Trump's opposition are Democrats who can't stand that Trump's political policies (and judicial appointments) are the polar opposite of their political priorities. That opposition includes Joe and Mika.
I agree, dmk. I also know a few folks that have realized how biased the networks' news media have become and chosen - like me - to turn them off. It's disturbing that its come to this. It's not like the president has not done things that have been good for this country, it might be a different world if the news had covered the positive with the negative. Personally, I think we could all use a break from the constant barrage of negativity.
I don't even mind negativity if it is expressed properly. But it is possible to debate polar opposite views on issues in a polite and reasonable fashion. The American media at least partially permitted that at one point in time, but I think it ended when David Brinkley retired in 1996.
Nothing was more contentious than the issue of slavery in 1858. Lincoln and Douglas had 7 debates that year, and according to Wikipedia, "Each debate lasted 3 hours. The format was that one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute rejoinder. The candidates alternated speaking first." People can hold polar opposite views and a fair media would allow both sides to present/defend their views without having a media distort them and take them out of context.
These social media companies sort of want it both ways. They want to be a free-speech public forum, and thus indemnified from any sort of problem posts that arise. But, at the same time, they want to protect users from heinous speech, death threats and things like the utter b.s. that comes from Trump. They are private enterprises, yet they function as a public utility. Trump's executive order would have likely have the opposite effect intended. If forced into having liabilities for what is on their platforms, they will censor more heavily. Trump is biting the hand that feeds him. Without Twitter, and the news media's amplification of his tweets (most people aren't on Twitter), he would lose his primary mode of communication.
For me, I agree with Kevin D. Williamson when he says Twitter is just "monkeys, jerking off and flinging poo". Social media, especially Twitter, has taken the dialog in American to the basest level, and I just wish intelligent people, who know better, would leave the platform, and let it die the death it deserves.
Trump has been exposing hypocrisy and cover-ups since at least the 1980's, when he took out center page ads. Only recently have my eyes opened to his sense of humor, his cleverness, and his refreshing lack of decorum. "So Trump is just throwing gasoline on a fire here, and he’s having fun watching the flames — and he’s having fun watching these holier-than-thou leftist journalists react like their moral sensibilities have been forever rocked and can never recover." Rush nailed it. As always, Erick, you are open and accepting to other viewpoints...much appreciated! https://www.mediamatters.org/rush-limbaugh/rush-limbaugh-praises-president-being-clever-sharing-conspiracy-theories
Rush, in his last years, on his knees worshipping a false god in Trump, who would discard him in a second if he spoke against the man. Trump is of poor character, and has always been. Character is destiny, and one day, he will get his just rewards. But now those who gleefully justify his pettiness, vulgarity, and casual lying as a strategy are wandering in the desert, because they are truly lost. What we are witnessing is evil. Those who won't bear witness against it, turn their back on God.
My perspective is that both President Trump and the insane Leftist media are overexposing themselves. I prefer to turn on classical music or watch wonderful Anna Fedorova play the piano on You Tube. What will become of our USA? People need rest to think calmly and critically, and we certainly are not enabled for that by the mainstream media.
'Truer words...'!
I tune in occasionally to Rush. But not nearly as much as I used to. He said something yesterday or the day before that has me convinced he's gone over the edge. I'm paraphrasing here but it was to the effect that "the coronavirus was a conspiracy of the world to destroy the U.S. economy in order to get rid of Trump." That these state actors "surprised themselves at how well it worked."
I understand Rush is in the entertainment business but geez.
I have friends who have undergone significant chemo treatments for cancer. There's a malady known as "chemo brain". I'm hoping some of the stuff coming out of Rush is related to the questionable judgements one makes when undergoing chemo.
Good point. Radio show hosts are humans too, with lives and chemo and sometimes good judgment and sometimes bad. Thanks for the reminder.
Trump does say some things that should not be said. The 2016 comment about Ted Cruz's father was one of the worst cases. But the pattern of Trump's targets for outrageous remarks are typically people who have first attacked him with false accusations, with Cruz being one exception. In my opinion, this was because Trump's target was more the Never Trump Cruz supporters who had no qualms about maliciously bashing Trump to defeat him politically. Among them was a Cruz supporting PAC who published a nude photo of Melania from her time as a model over a decade before. This enraged Trump just like Erick got enraged by a set of Trump supporters who wrongly threatened his family. Scarborough is among the media sources who bashes Trump for anything and everything from being a traitor to killing 100K people with the Corona virus. Trump has an "eye-for-an-eye" philosophy and even if that is not "turn the other cheek" Christianity, he is far from the only person who responds to "evil with evil." That doesn't make it right, but it does suggest that Trump's unjust attacks have to be judged in the context of the targets who nearly always have unjustly attacked him first.
I find it interesting that the super pac that spawned the 'Melania campaign' in support of Cruz later turned out - after Cruz dropped-out - in support of Trump. Robert Mercer and his daughter shifted their money to support the Trump campaign, bringing KellyAnn Conway along for the ride.
Apparently, Trump's outrage at the despicable tactic of using Melania was put aside when enough money was involved - like every other politician.
As for Trump's reprisals being justified...? President Trump has always responded with, what to me, seems like a middle school boy mentality. His taunts and jabs on Twitter smack more of "nah,nah, boo-boo" than a mature, confident man that is leader of the most powerful country on earth. His rebuttals are inarticulate and mostly deals in innuendo, and snark. He should have listened to Melania when she cautioned him to be more 'presidential'. He is his own worst enemy.
I didn't say Trump's reprisal was justified. I said Trump responds negatively to people who attack him first - and clearly Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezenski fall into that category. Can you name anybody who Trump attacked who hasn't attacked him first, with the exception of possibly Ted Cruz?
Political battles are often nasty and very many people are guilty of less than ideal behavior. For example, do you support or oppose Hillary Clinton's characterization of "half of Trump's supporters [as a] basket of deplorables"? There are clearly many false criticisms of Trump that have been repeatedly endlessly for the past 4 years. Do you admit this? Or is it only Trump's statements that you attack?
Politics is both an individual sport and a team game. Lots of people who opposed Biden are now supporting him. Some of his primary competitors who heavily criticized him are now vying to be his vice President. Trump and Cruz were arguably the two most conservative candidates in the 2016 primary. After it was clear that Cruz would not win, it was clearly logical for his supporters to shift to Trump, who was clearly a better candidate from their perspective than Hillary.
I am not a fan of the Clintons so I definitely have issues with her statements. Even though I did not support Trump's election but I was not opposed to it.
I have family members that support President Trump - people that are intelligent, use-to-be-liberals, and so far from deplorable it's off the charts. I love and respect them and felt like they deserved to have the president they voted for.
I understand folks frustration and anger over the unfair practices of the media with Trump, it's been a revelation. I certainly did not mean any disrespect to you or your support of a man you obviously believe in.
From what I've seen here, you conduct yourself respectfully with kindness; you deserve the same back.
Thanks for a clarifying response. I have no objection to people opposing Trump's political policies, or his history of sexual immorality, or the forceful way he responds to his attackers. What I object to is people who bash everything Trump does in a relentless barrage that has gone on for the last 4 years. Your clarifying comment suggests to me that you do not belong to that group. I would love to have a polite discussion with you about what you like or don't like about Trump's policies and/or behavior.
It is possible to agree to disagree without using negative labels like deplorables, or racist, or Nazi, that are often applied not only to Trump but to any of his supporters. I am not a fan of name calling as in my opinion it accomplishes nothing of value other than getting twitter acclaim. I don't mind criticism of Trump's counter punching tweets. But I consistently ask people evaluate it in the context of Trump being constantly bashed from nearly half the country, who consider him somewhere between Hitler and Satan, and perhaps worse than that.
Isn't Scarborough dead? Beating a dead horse so to speak isn't worth the effort and only hurts the family.
I am not sure what you mean by Scarborough being dead. It was a female intern who died during his term as a FL Congressmen, as in this quote from a Tuesday Hill article: "[Lori] Klausutis, who had an undiagnosed heart condition, fell and hit her head at work in 2001 and was found dead the following morning. Scarborough was in Washington at the time and the medical examiner ruled her death an accident.
Scarborough is very much alive. This is his tweet from today quoting a WSJ article; "“100,000 people in the U.S. have died from the new coronavirus. Experts say official totals likely understate the extent of the pandemic, in part because of limited & differing testing capabilities in the U.S. and around the world.” I don't follow Scarborough, but I suspect he is among many media sources who unjustly blame Trump for the Corona deaths. From what I have heard, Scarborugh and his co-host wife Mike Brzezenski regularly bash Trump with what I believe are an endless onslaught of false accusations.
My family use to watch them, my husband still does. In my opinion,Joe and Mika go beyond 'bashin' the President. They speculate, postulate and offer their opinions as if their opinions are something more. I am sad to admit that they have ventured into territory that is defamatory. I suspect they know that it will drive Trump to tweet something in rebuttal, which will give them something to mock the next morning. It seems to have become a vicious, if not ridiculously blatant tactic.
You have your opinion about Joe and Mika. Lots of people have an opposing opinion. Joe and Mika are clearly part of a media heavily biased for the Democrats and heavily opposed to Trump. They and their media colleagues have attacked Trump endlessly for the past 4 years. They can cry and whine because Trump attacks them back. But the only people Trump is perpetually at war with are those who are perpetually at war with him. For example, Trump has positive relationships with nearly all the Republican Senator(with the exception of Romney) and he has about 95% support among Republicans. The bulk of Trump's opposition are Democrats who can't stand that Trump's political policies (and judicial appointments) are the polar opposite of their political priorities. That opposition includes Joe and Mika.
I agree, dmk. I also know a few folks that have realized how biased the networks' news media have become and chosen - like me - to turn them off. It's disturbing that its come to this. It's not like the president has not done things that have been good for this country, it might be a different world if the news had covered the positive with the negative. Personally, I think we could all use a break from the constant barrage of negativity.
I don't even mind negativity if it is expressed properly. But it is possible to debate polar opposite views on issues in a polite and reasonable fashion. The American media at least partially permitted that at one point in time, but I think it ended when David Brinkley retired in 1996.
Nothing was more contentious than the issue of slavery in 1858. Lincoln and Douglas had 7 debates that year, and according to Wikipedia, "Each debate lasted 3 hours. The format was that one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute rejoinder. The candidates alternated speaking first." People can hold polar opposite views and a fair media would allow both sides to present/defend their views without having a media distort them and take them out of context.
OK. I had heard the man had died. TY for the clarification.
These social media companies sort of want it both ways. They want to be a free-speech public forum, and thus indemnified from any sort of problem posts that arise. But, at the same time, they want to protect users from heinous speech, death threats and things like the utter b.s. that comes from Trump. They are private enterprises, yet they function as a public utility. Trump's executive order would have likely have the opposite effect intended. If forced into having liabilities for what is on their platforms, they will censor more heavily. Trump is biting the hand that feeds him. Without Twitter, and the news media's amplification of his tweets (most people aren't on Twitter), he would lose his primary mode of communication.
For me, I agree with Kevin D. Williamson when he says Twitter is just "monkeys, jerking off and flinging poo". Social media, especially Twitter, has taken the dialog in American to the basest level, and I just wish intelligent people, who know better, would leave the platform, and let it die the death it deserves.