Donald Trump

[Strictlylogical]

45 minutes ago, Marc said:

Trump is never wrong.

5D chess

#nogroundgame

 

YES: Part of 5D chess -

Make true statements which are unpopular and "plausibly deniable" short term, yet inevitably undeniable long term.

The more unpopular/political and seemingly outlandish the truth, the more illegitimate the deniers/media are revealed to be, and the more RIGHT, Trump will inevitably and (plausibly) undeniably - become.

 

[william.scherk]

On 9/24/2022 at 1:13 PM, william.scherk said:

The 'docket today' link goes to the full docket as collated by Court Listener, where you can -- if interested -- keep track of the entire case proceedings.

Direct link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/trump-v-united-states/

New filings by President Trump creating red waves in the reactionary left today. 

[william.scherk]

A quick search of OL found no harping about the Supreme Court order yesterday. Yet.

[Peter]

15 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

A quick search of OL found no harping about the Supreme Court order yesterday. Yet.

What else is changing William?

From Real Clear Politics, 2024 Republican Presidential Nomination, Politico/Morning Consult.

Trump 45, DeSantis 30, Pence 7, Cruz 3, Cheney 2, Haley 2, Pompeo 1, Hogan 0, Scott 0.

President Biden Job Approval: Approve 42, Disapprove 56 . . . . Disapprove +14  end quote

So much that is bad for our country like the border situation, is happening under Biden, with outright lying from his “advisors.”

“Ron” is easy to remember and I still envision a Trump/DeSantis ticket. So, I will need to learn to spell the possible Veep’s name with a capital “S” in the middle. Desantis is so much easier, but it lacks the pizzazz of DeSantis.

[william.scherk]

21 minutes ago, Peter said:

44 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

A quick search of OL found no harping about the Supreme Court order yesterday. Yet.

What else is changing William?

Polls, schmolls ...

 

[Peter]

It seems more likely Trump’s ratings will be what William showed, but I wonder what percent of Republicans will vote for Biden? Zero. I can see a few “Never Trumper’s” going libertarian.

A little un-woke political humor. I did not know Paul Anka had something to do with the song below. Maybe President Trump will pick a female Veep? Here are some candidates the net is talking about. Peter

She's a Lady by Tom Jones, Paul Anka . . .  

Well she's all you'd ever want,
She's the kind they'd like to flaunt and take to dinner.
Well she always knows her place.
She's got style, she's got grace, She's a winner.

She's a Lady. Whoa whoa whoa,
She's a Lady.
Talkin' about that little lady,
And the lady is mine . . . .

Rep. Elise Stefanik. Stefanik, who easily won a fifth term representing the North Country in Upstate New York, is one of the top House Republicans after rising in the ranks as a staunch Trump supporter. She endorsed him for president in 2024 on Friday, days before he even officially announced his campaign, and was re-elected GOP conference chair on Tuesday.

Kari Lake. Lake is a former television news anchor who lost Arizona’s gubernatorial election to Katie Hobbs, the first Democrat to be elected governor in the battleground state since Janet Napolitano in 2006. Lake has been a strong MAGA ally, repeating Trump’s unsubstantiated claims the 2020 election was rigged and other baseless conspiracy theories. Lake previously said she wouldn’t be Trump’s running mate because “I‘m going to serve eight years as governor of Arizona,” but now her calendar is open.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. Noem won re-election last week in a landslide and has been called a rising star in the Republican Party by Fox News. The outspoken conservative said in July she’d support Trump in 2024, but would be “shocked if he asked” her to be his vice president.

Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador. Haley is considering her own bid for president and may not be as much in Trump’s favor in the past after saying “he let us down” in early 2021. But she also said she would not run if Trump runs.

This next lady won’t be happening. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. MTG is a far-right conspiracy theorist, a strong supporter of Trump and one of the most visible Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, despite being stripped of her committee assignments last year. Trump has “repeatedly” discussed choosing her as his 2024 running mate, according to The New York Times Magazine journalist Robert Draper, because she has been “unflaggingly loyal” to him.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Trump's tax returns?

So idiots can bitch that he took advantage of tax deductions and legal loopholes?

yawn...

The real problem with showing tax deductions to hostile idiots on the way out of power is not that they will find dirt. Believe me, if there were dirt there, it would have been out by now.

The real problem is this will muck up (but not destroy) his negotiating leverage in private deals.

At this point, I don't think that matters.

yawn...

Michael

[Marc]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

It seems more likely Trump’s ratings will be what William showed, but I wonder what percent of Republicans will vote for Biden? Zero. I can see a few “Never Trumper’s” going libertarian.

A little un-woke political humor. I did not know Paul Anka had something to do with the song below. Maybe President Trump will pick a female Veep? Here are some candidates the net is talking about. Peter

She's a Lady by Tom Jones, Paul Anka . . .  

Well she's all you'd ever want,
She's the kind they'd like to flaunt and take to dinner.
Well she always knows her place.
She's got style, she's got grace, She's a winner.

She's a Lady. Whoa whoa whoa,
She's a Lady.
Talkin' about that little lady,
And the lady is mine . . . .

Rep. Elise Stefanik. Stefanik, who easily won a fifth term representing the North Country in Upstate New York, is one of the top House Republicans after rising in the ranks as a staunch Trump supporter. She endorsed him for president in 2024 on Friday, days before he even officially announced his campaign, and was re-elected GOP conference chair on Tuesday.

Kari Lake. Lake is a former television news anchor who lost Arizona’s gubernatorial election to Katie Hobbs, the first Democrat to be elected governor in the battleground state since Janet Napolitano in 2006. Lake has been a strong MAGA ally, repeating Trump’s unsubstantiated claims the 2020 election was rigged and other baseless conspiracy theories. Lake previously said she wouldn’t be Trump’s running mate because “I‘m going to serve eight years as governor of Arizona,” but now her calendar is open.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem. Noem won re-election last week in a landslide and has been called a rising star in the Republican Party by Fox News. The outspoken conservative said in July she’d support Trump in 2024, but would be “shocked if he asked” her to be his vice president.

Nikki Haley, former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador. Haley is considering her own bid for president and may not be as much in Trump’s favor in the past after saying “he let us down” in early 2021. But she also said she would not run if Trump runs.

This next lady won’t be happening. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. MTG is a far-right conspiracy theorist, a strong supporter of Trump and one of the most visible Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, despite being stripped of her committee assignments last year. Trump has “repeatedly” discussed choosing her as his 2024 running mate, according to The New York Times Magazine journalist Robert Draper, because she has been “unflaggingly loyal” to him.

Kari Lake did not lose.

I cannot remember one single time since forever when a President choose a VP running mate that was expected or even semi expected.

No one, predicted Trump would choose Pence and even less than no one thought Obama would go with Biden.

It is usually someone unexpected.

 

[william.scherk]

7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The real problem with showing tax deductions to hostile idiots on the way out of power is not that they will find dirt. Believe me, if there were dirt there, it would have been out by now.

When asked during his 2015-16 campaign Trump repeatedly said he would release his tax returns (as Obama/Biden had done and Biden/Harris have done), with conditions, though his answers have varied over time.

"Dirt" came out during Trump casino litigation and SEC investigations. Returns were included in discovery and showed years with zero income tax paid. Later on, the New York Times published two stories with details of varied schemes. Illegal, not necessarily. Canny, maybe. Transparent to the public, anything but.

I don't know how to separate out hurt from hyperbole from misleading bullshit in this outraged-victim reaction on Truth.

Quote

Why would anybody be surprised that the Supreme Court has ruled against me, they always do!

Trump v. United States is pending in the 11th Circuit after the oral hearing yesterday.

They may decide in his favour, they may not. Opinion is running hot, but nobody really has perfect insight.

If he wins in the circuit, DOJ will appeal and Special Master Dearie will continue to work under the authority of Judge Cannon's order -- until and unless the Supremes shut it down. Depending on how many dollars and lawyers pile on, Dearie's work may end in January/February. 

If DOJ wins at the circuit, depending on the details (Remand for Dismissal or plain old vacate), that might be that. 

If the 11th vacates, that will end Judge Cannon's oversight right there. 

Quote

It is unprecedented to be handing over Tax Returns, & it creates terrible precedent for future Presidents.

There is no law that mandates a candidate or elected president must reveal the tax records. But when somebody with a Deep State hat (the Executive branch 'Justice') or pompon (the Legislative branch committee of benghazi/wayzanmeens) demands records ...

In any case, all six years of tax returns still are unlikely to be made public. Not only will new committees-of-benghazi be formed, but wayzanmeens is under no obligation to show their work.

Wonder how much corruption was evident in previous/current President/Vice-President returns ... ?

Presidential Tax Returns | Presidential Candidates Taxes - Tax Notes

WWW.TAXNOTES.COM

---

Tax History Project has compiled an archive of presidential tax returns, including those of recent candidates. Stay informed on all tax topics with Tax Notes!

Skipping one bizarre non-question ... 

Quote

The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body, with our Country paying the price.

He doesn't really mean that, does he? It's true that the standing of the Court has fallen in public opinion, but that doesn't mean he isn't proud of his three appointees. I wager ...

Quote

They refused to even look at the Election Hoax of 2020. Shame on them!

Shame it came to this.

Bloomberg has a rather dry catch-up with Trump and the Supremes. If the Supremes are now on their way to becoming an Enemy of Trump, can't say I blame him or MAGA raging.  His appointees seem to have betrayed him. 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

yawn...

 

 

Here's an idea. Why don't you, William, put your own itemized credit card bills online where everybody can see them?

Ah...

Don't like that idea?

I imagine not. I don't think anyone likes that idea.

Duh...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We could do it this way, too.

Uh oh...
Trump better watch out.
The walls are closing in.
There's no getting out of this one.
The walls are closing in.
The walls are closing in.
The walls are closing in.
See?
The walls are closing in.
He's toast this time.
SCOTUS, baby.
We nailed him.
The walls are closing in...

Blah blah blah...

Then again, January is coming soon.

yawn...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another view.

No issues here, either.

 

Or this.

"BUT TRUMP WILL BURN DOWN THE HOUSE!" THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT, BARR...

"But Trump Will Burn Down the House!" That is Precisely the Point, Barr...

WWW.BITCHUTE.COM

---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1595305160728797185 Support via donation: Patreon: https://tinyurl.com/y2jothtp Subscribestar: https://tinyurl.com/yyxov782 My books: Blogger:...

Michael

[Strictlylogical]

I am perplexed and disturbed by this also.

 

14 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Skipping one bizarre non-question ... 

Quote

The Supreme Court has lost its honor, prestige, and standing, & has become nothing more than a political body, with our Country paying the price.

He doesn't really mean that, does he? It's true that the standing of the Court has fallen in public opinion, but that doesn't mean he isn't proud of his three appointees. I wager ...

Quote

They refused to even look at the Election Hoax of 2020. Shame on them!

Shame it came to this.

 

But I am unsure whether I am uncomfortable with how this has been said rather than the truth which is in there (note how the Constitution has been extremely eroded from the bench over the last century) or even in the potential reaction by people in the public sphere?

It has an unstately and personal tone.... yet, should we as individuals not react personally to how our individual rights are treated?  Also it is hard to tell if he is attacking the people or the institution... does he want to grab multiple audiences, those who think one thing AND those who think the other?  

Is this a kind of doublespeak?  Is it necessary?  Is it good? 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

It has an unstately and personal tone...

S,

Where do you see personal?

If the election had not been a total fraud and Trump had lost in a legitimate manner, do you really think he would have said that?

Really?

Trump is referring to SCOTUS not giving standing to a group of states who petitioned SCOTUS to look at election irregularities. The states through their AG's  clearly did have standing. It's written in law and all. But SCOTUS refused to look at the petition and said they did not.

They chickened out, so to speak.

If SCOTUS can do a legal abomination like Roe v. Wade, why can't it do another one like "legally" cut and run when the public is upset? It can and it did.

We do not live in Constitutional times.

That is what Trump is saying. It is general.

And by being general, yes it is personal. It is personal to me, too. I don't like it that my vote means nothing if the ruling predators have other plans. I take that personally.

Also, I don't accept the conceptual package deal that because one takes a legal abomination personally, he is only motivated by lesser concerns like he lost an election--all because he name is Trump.

That, I submit, is TDS par excellence.

 

As to the fear factor, if all goes well, Trump will be President when both houses are MAGA. And yes, he (and MAGA in general) will fix this shit. Even if it means an Amendment to the Constitution, or even a Convention of States.

We need to stop trampling on the Constitution because some people in power don't have the backbone to do their jobs when emotions run high. Notice I did not say "when reason runs high." Reason never gins up a mob. Only emotions do that.

And we have a bunch of chicken-shit leaders when a mob happen. Hell, even when it only looks like a mob happens as in the Jan. 6 thing. Just look at how they acted like cowards before the press after and how normal people who basically took selfies on that day there are in solitary confinement without a right to a speedy trial.

 

Back to point. SCOTUS is not the emperor of America. Nor is it the ruling junta.

I don't care how scared anyone gets.

Hell, the predator class is trying to make it that way in Brazil right now. It's not working out too well. I hope it doesn't reach that level here in the USA, but it can. Let those in power keep caving to tyrants and see what happens.

 

When in doubt, use the Constitution.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh, but Trump needs to be more diplomatic and soft-spoken in his speech, right?

 

Well, the CCP is soft-spoken and polite.

They just, in their soft-spoken and polite manner, flew hundreds of drones over the most important US federal government buildings in Washington DC--all through cutouts, of course, so our useful idiots can try to gaslight everyone.

Are people yelling about that? No. Their problem is heartland people who take selfies, right. After all, the CCP is soft-spoken and polite.

 

Well, the CCP, in their soft-spoken and polite manner, just released a bioweapon on the world and the entire world turned into a bunch of pussies. Some are still wearing masks and melting down like Karens over those who don't.

Even Klaus Schwab at the WEF just said the CCP is the best way to govern and serves as a model to the world.

 

Think about it. The CCO just tried to kill a bunch of us, and the world is caving to them. Because they are soft-spoken and polite?

Bah... I'm not.

Trump may bluster a bit, he may get something wrong at times, but he respects the Constitution and keeps foreign governments out of the idea of taking over America. 

I'm with Trump 100% because of that.

 

Under the right conditions, the CCP, in their soft-spoken and polite manner, will put a bullet right through your head, right here in America before too long, and smile about it.

Klaus Schwab is so dumb, he doesn't see that they will, politely and when the time comes, put a bullet right through his head, too.

And smile about it.

 

Once again, when in doubt, use the Constitution.

Michael

[Strictlylogical]

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Oh, but Trump needs to be more diplomatic and soft-spoken in his speech, right?

No, not at all.

 

There was something about the quality and choice of words by George Washington, so that when I read them, I see more a giant of a man embodying an ideal, a station, a sacred institution.  I never get the sense of the personal or the mortal man  from his speeches or pronouncements.  Ronald Reagan was a shadow yet an echo if this.

Neither appeared soft or diplomatic, when it came to what America and freedom was about.  George Washington certainly was no turncoat or softie.

 

Trump may be doing things for all the right reasons, but his personality and his words sometimes get in the way of that.  I do not think he has consciously and introspectively undergone the personality transition, the spiritual transformation from big swaggering bossman, to president of what was once the freest nation on Earth.

George Washington and some other early presidents (John Adams comes to mind) knew, that the office was bigger and higher than the man...

 

I'm not as certain Trump really has consciously and to his core, really embraced that idea.

 

Perhaps he has, and he is only using a persona... but again that strikes me as doublespeak somehow.. used to appeal to those whom a George Washington might not impress.  and that would be sad.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 minutes ago, Strictlylogical said:

There was something about the quality and choice of words by George Washington, so that when I read them, I see more a giant of a man embodying an ideal, a station, a sacred institution.  I never get the sense of the personal or the mortal man  from his speeches or pronouncements.  Ronald Reagan was a shadow yet an echo if this.

S,

Can you point to something more specific than a general sense or an opinion?

I can point to a lot of phrases by Trump that give me precisely that feeling. And I can give the reasons.

Starting with MAGA.

 

Be careful with how narratives are framed in our culture. They will sell you snake oil and call it medicine. Injectable snake oil at that.

btw - Did you think Fauci--at first, not after he was unwound--embodied "an ideal, a station, a sacred institution?" as leader of our national healthcare?

I did.

His image fooled me at first. I thought he was a loving benign grandpa who wanted the best for everyone. I trusted him.

It didn't last, but that was my initial impression.

 

That kind of image selling in the mainstream cuts the other way, too.

Incidentally, do you think Hillary Clinton's posture embodies an ideal, a station, a sacred institution? Or Barack Obama's does?

Look at deeds. That's a premise worth checking.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

I am grateful for all the good in my life.

And I am grateful for all of you.

Seriously.

But, from my addiction recovery, I do expressions of this kind of gratitude this daily, not yearly. So if I don't sound as reverent as I should, that's why. To me, this is normal.

But, to be ostensive and clear, I am grateful all the way to the bottom of my heart and beyond.

Life is wonderful.

 

Also, I am grateful to have this space where I can bitch at the world all I want and some people hear me.

Michael

[Strictlylogical]

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Can you point to something more specific than a general sense or an opinion?

I will review some of my favorite books and get back to you on it.

 

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Incidentally, do you think Hillary Clinton's posture embodies an ideal, a station, a sacred institution? Or Barack Obama's does?

I think there is a difference between what type of person someone appears to be, and how a person of a certain type appears, if you get my meaning.  In one case a person (of any type) only appears to be a certain type, in the other case a person of that type appears a certain way.

A judge wearing robes appears as he is when learned and just, yet a judge wearing robes only "appears" to be an arbiter of justice when the robes are worn by a traitor to his station.

 

So too, when someone speaks right ideas honestly and eloquently, the words belie the greatness of the person, but those selfsame words or an attempted imitation thereof by a scoundrel are an illusion obfuscating the truth underneath them.. and the scoundrel in some sense has not made an appearance at all.

 

Appearances can be deceiving indeed, especially when used for deception.

[tmj]

And the only indication of which type people are is an accounting of their deeds.

[Strictlylogical]

19 minutes ago, tmj said:

And the only indication of which type people are is an accounting of their deeds.

I think that is overstating it, if “having conversations” does not count as “deeds”.  

I have had some indication of what type of person I am dealing with from multiple conversations.  Perhaps the best and most reliable indications are deeds ie  actions, but they are not the only indication of the kind of person you are dealing with.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

S,

Here is something to think about.

James Woods knows what I am talking about.

And he knows how to correct himself from lapses due to too much core story.

 

btw - That "eloquence" of Matt Baker's was shouted in rage--shouted in rage at the top of his lungs--at the Maricopa County Board by the time he was through.

Unstately as compared to George Washington?

Heh...

I can see why more dainty people would say so, but, honestly, I don't even know what that means.

(And I speak from experience. I used to direct dubbing for movies in Brazil. I had to learn to let each person find his or her own voice for mood and emotion to make it work--even as voices in the mouths of other actors on screen. Mere imitation of what I wanted, while correct according to the context, produced lousy results. After the dubbers groked it, they had to find their own expression of the spirit of the moment. Then it was great.)

 

How about stately in his own terms?

In my world, Matt Baker is as stately as all get out.

I would not want him to be George Washington, just as I would not want Trump to be.

And I find them all stately.

 

Or here's a thought. I would not want George Washington to have to deal with the Deep State and a bunch of chicken-shit judges and other leaders when they are cowering like cornered rats from their own shadows.

I'm not sure Washington would have known what to do with them. Trump does, though.

I can't evaluate George Washington's demeanor from this distance. I wonder how stately he sounded when he sentenced a person to be hung.  But I can evaluate his results and what he did worked.

And I can evaluate Trump's demeanor and his results. From my view, Trump is effective in his stateliness. 

 

Apropos, let me address a monkey in the room. Is Ron DeSantis stately? I think he is. But for those who think of replacing Trump with him and cite demeanor as their reason, they are stuck in propaganda paid for by never-Trumpers.

Common sense is a much better standard.

Think about it. A candidate will need certain blue-leaning states to win the presidency. However, gobs of MAGA people left those states. Guess where they migrated? Yup. A whole bunch of them went to Florida. And they helped make Florida work under DeSantis (who I agree has much value and talent of his own). 

But if, by some fluke, DeSantis wins the primary, then goes to the states his Florida patriot migrants came from to compete in the general election, will the people left over at those states vote for DeSantis?

Hell no. The ones who would vote for him are all in Florida.

Think about it.

Style means nothing in that context.

Michael

[tmj]

51 minutes ago, Strictlylogical said:

I think that is overstating it, if “having conversations” does not count as “deeds”.  

I have had some indication of what type of person I am dealing with from multiple conversations.  Perhaps the best and most reliable indications are deeds ie  actions, but they are not the only indication of the kind of person you are dealing with.

I thinking more in the sense of objectively judging/categorizing a person you have no intimate firsthand knowledge of , their actions are the only evidence of their motivations available .

[Strictlylogical]

5 hours ago, tmj said:

I thinking more in the sense of objectively judging/categorizing a person you have no intimate firsthand knowledge of , their actions are the only evidence of their motivations available .

agreed

[Strictlylogical]

I think we may be having two different conversations. 

You seem to be more focused on a live person's sounds and mannerisms, whereas I was focused on the written word.

 

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - That "eloquence" of Matt Baker's was shouted in rage--shouted in rage at the top of his lungs--at the Maricopa County Board by the time he was through.

Unstately as compared to George Washington?

Heh...

Statesmen throughout history have been known to shout in rage ... but leaving that aside,

the eloquence and tone I was referring to had nothing to do with extemporaneous delivery, speaking volume, or quality of voice, physical ticks, pacing, arm waving, fist pumping or fist slamming or the like.  My main focus is the words, the text, the substance, and the tone or eloquence they have.  I was referring to the conceptual and psychological (and perhaps emotional) content of the words, explicit, or implicit.  I have read many speeches which have a very distinct tone and eloquence and the substance of the words (along with their overtones and rich meaning) comes through without having to deal with any physicality of theatrics, wind and fury or sound.. i.e. neither soft-spoken nor spittle-laden. 

I do not expect a citizen to be "stately" but I expect a representative in office who purports to protect my individual freedoms to.  That means first that the person must arise to the station of office and in their official capacity embody that office and all that implies (primarily that it only be carried out consistent with the constitution) and not to act or pronounce anything in that capacity which lowers or personalizes that office. They must to the best of their ability leave their personal biases and baggage at home.

 

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I can see why more dainty people would say so, but, honestly, I don't even know what that means.

(And I speak from experience. I used to direct dubbing for movies in Brazil. I had to learn to let each person find his or her own voice for mood and emotion to make it work--even as voices in the mouths of other actors on screen. Mere imitation of what I wanted, while correct according to the context, produced lousy results. After the dubbers groked it, they had to find their own expression of the spirit of the moment. Then it was great.)

 

Again, physical volume has nothing to do with anything.  I can judge tone solely by your choice of the word "dainty". 

Can you judge my tone of this (somewhat lengthy post) by the words I am using completely absent any auditory or visual cues?  I would hope so.

There is a long cultural tradition which originates from England, starting with the Magna Carta and culminating in the The Founding Father's Constitutional instruments.  They fought a war for freedom, there is nothing dainty about their greatness of character and the nobility of their cause.  They knew that, and I would hope you know it too. 

 

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

How about stately in his own terms?

In my world, Matt Baker is as stately as all get out.

I would not want him to be George Washington, just as I would not want Trump to be.

And I find them all stately.

 

 

?  Again, a citizen need not embody a role... no one has entrusted to him any role or office to represent them and protect their rights.  He has not been entrusted to be and he should not volunteer to be his brothers' representative or keeper, he owes it to himself to have his voice heard and hold those actual representatives to account. 

The speech is not stately, it cannot be, no part of the state is speaking... it is a person.

 

The speech is, in its own way eloquent and persuasive.  The tone of the text is perfect for a concerned citizen addressing those who have betrayed their role, and yes it is full of righteous rage as it should be.

 

Citizens have had a great impact in the past, as you will recall Thomas Paine's pamphlets were very popular and crucial in getting the American Revolution going.  I have nothing against citizens speaking up against oppression, in fact I wish there were more of it.

 

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Or here's a thought. I would not want George Washington to have to deal with the Deep State and a bunch of chicken-shit judges and other leaders when they are cowering like cornered rats from their own shadows.

I'm not sure Washington would have known what to do with them. Trump does, though.

I can't evaluate George Washington's demeanor from this distance. I wonder how stately he sounded when he sentenced a person to be hung.  But I can evaluate his results and what he did worked.

And I can evaluate Trump's demeanor and his results. From my view, Trump is effective in his stateliness. 

 

I think it would be unfair to drop Washington into such a vastly changed world and expect him not to bat an eye.  Had Washington been given a second life after his first (with all his faculties and experience intact) to experience the past 40 years, he would have learned enough about the modern world to know how to deal with them, or certainly he would have had the courage to act as he felt most effective.

You should remember this man fought the war of independence and defeated/fended off a vast and powerful, dare I say, Global, English Empire.  He was incredibly rich, with land, and mansions, and slaves, and could have lived a life of leisure, his only requirement would have been to continue to be accessory to a system of oppression and to pay tribute to his overlords in England.  Yet, he left his home and commanded the armies, and NOT always from some comfortable safe distance, he PERSONALLY led his men on horseback often in rather dangerous situations.  He strode forth and laid it all on the line.

This is something we should keep in mind whenever we hear all the blustering and emotional words of a modern day so-called "warrior" from EITHER the left or the right.

 

And now again we veer into foreign territory, "demeanor", "sounds"... and then effectiveness of deed...

So yes, deeds are used to judge a person, and certainly so to assess how effective they are at discharging their duties as statesmen, and in the case of America, at representing individuals and protecting their rights.

I have not here in any case, dealt with Trump's policies or actions as the President while in office. I am making no statements as to that.  Again I was referring to his text about (and ostensibly to the Supreme Court) only, and the tone of it.

 

11 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Apropos, let me address a monkey in the room. Is Ron DeSantis stately? I think he is. But for those who think of replacing Trump with him and cite demeanor as their reason, they are stuck in propaganda paid for by never-Trumpers.

Common sense is a much better standard.

Think about it. A candidate will need certain blue-leaning states to win the presidency. However, gobs of MAGA people left those states. Guess where they migrated? Yup. A whole bunch of them went to Florida. And they helped make Florida work under DeSantis (who I agree has much value and talent of his own). 

But if, by some fluke, DeSantis wins the primary, then goes to the states his Florida patriot migrants came from to compete in the general election, will the people left over at those states vote for DeSantis?

Hell no. The ones who would vote for him are all in Florida.

Think about it.

Style means nothing in that context.

Michael

Maybe I'm old school, but style (personal physical presence) really does not mean anything in ANY context to me. You may be more in tune what the kids call post-modern politics, all the sound bites, memes, burns, speaking points scored against the other side, and the like. 

I find politics has shifted farther from a contest based on merit, for the one best suited to discharge the office as best possible, towards (and yes it had always been somewhat so) too much only a contest of personality, a popularity contest, a striving of cults, rather than of appointment by the people the best for the highest (read most consequential) of roles in the government.

 

I come from a culture of roles and offices as in the long line of English tradition which is the birthplace of the modern age of freedom and democracy (you better believe it... although I do credit Greeks with the first).  In the proper tradition government officials are representatives of office and not stand ins for big Papa or Mama, nor the Big Bossman... the lack of the personal and big personality is purposeful and necessary for the person to act AS the representative they are to be, and not merely as big personalities stepping in as the boss.

 

IMHO