Every day is a new circus.

[Town Heretic]

He was expected "to turn a 4th of July celebration into a campaign event," but he did not.

But to contextualize a bit, he was the front and center in the celebration of patriotism, which is a pretty good press op, when you consider it.

 

[Idolater]

But to contextualize a bit, he was the front and center in the celebration of patriotism, which is a pretty good press op, when you consider it.

The prominent context is that he is the President of the United States, and he orchestrated a celebration of the Declaration of Independence 4th of July Independence Day holiday, and of our armed forces, without turning the thing into a rally for his reelection, which is what he was expected to do. That was my whole point.

 

[Town Heretic]

The prominent context is that he is the President of the United States, and he orchestrated a celebration of the Declaration of Independence 4th of July Independence Day holiday, and of our armed forces, without turning the thing into a rally for his reelection, which is what he was expected to do. That was my whole point.

I understood you. What I was suggesting is that any time you get to stand before the nation and look presidential it's a good photo/press op for the reelection campaign. In other words, the king doesn't need to point at his crown. He's wearing it. Though I will say it was a pleasant surprise to see him resist the urge to make the obvious patently so. Good on him.

 

[Stripe]

Soccer is gay. Unless girls play it. Then it's just silly.

 

[Idolater]

I understood you. What I was suggesting is that any time you get to stand before the nation and look presidential it's a good photo/press op for the reelection campaign. In other words, the king doesn't need to point at his crown. He's wearing it.

President Theodore Roosevelt called it the 'bully pulpit,' and history hasn't frowned upon him for saying it. President Trump's been using the office as such, more than many other presidents ever did, and I don't fault him for it.

Are you suggesting that President Trump oughtn't appear in public, because in so doing, he's 'pointing at the crown?' I don't think that'd be responsible. Part of the job is to be visible. Every time any first-term president appears publicly, is also a reelection campaign event according to your view here, right? Or is it just with this president?

Though I will say it was a pleasant surprise to see him resist the urge to make the obvious patently so. Good on him.

That's all that I was saying. Service members and their families seemed to specially appreciate his effort here also.

 

[Idolater]

Soccer is gay. Unless girls play it.

I think that's largely untrue . . . .

 

[Town Heretic]

President Theodore Roosevelt called it the 'bully pulpit,'

Exactly.

Are you suggesting that President Trump oughtn't appear in public, because in so doing, he's 'pointing at the crown?'

No, I'm basically noting the thing you noted above, coupled with genuine surprise that he didn't do it. He tends to, you know.

I"m smarter than...know more about...that sort of thing.

Part of the job is to be visible.

Agreed. The other part is to be presidential when you do it. He manages the first, as a rule, far better than the latter. And so my pleasant surprise.

Every time any first-term president appears publicly, is also a reelection campaign event according to your view here, right?

Every time anyone who wants another term of office makes a public appearance in that office it's a help for his or her reelection campaign. Unless they screw it up.

 

[annabenedetti]

But to contextualize a bit, he was the front and center in the celebration of patriotism, which is a pretty good press op, when you consider it.

It was always going to be all about him.

.

.

.

But now it's always going to be about airports.. :chuckle:

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The point being that our president lacks the historical knowledge of an average 6th grader, but did manage to turn a 4th of July celebration into a campaign event?

Yes, those are both true.

He was expected "to turn a 4th of July celebration into a campaign event," but he did not.

But he did. You see, the Republican National Committee was given a large number of VIP tickets to distribute to big donors or anyone else to whom they wanted to show a favor. Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc. got nothing.

So you see, Trump did indeed turn it into a campaign event.

 

[Idolater]

Barbarian observes:
The point being that our president lacks the historical knowledge of an average 6th grader, but did manage to turn a 4th of July celebration into a campaign event?

Yes, those are both true.



But he did. You see, the Republican National Committee was given a large number of VIP tickets to distribute to big donors or anyone else to whom they wanted to show a favor. Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc. got nothing.

So you see, Trump did indeed turn it into a campaign event.

So according to your view, he had to have treated all seats the same, and pretend that there weren't 'better' and 'worse' places from which to spectate, or else it was a campaign event? I don't agree with that.

 

[The Barbarian]

So according to your view...

Handing out a large block of VIP tickets to the Republican National Committee, while not giving any to any other party, made it a campaign event. That's how it works.

he had to have treated all seats the same,

No. It if wasn't a campaign event, he wouldn't have given VIP tickets to his party, only.

and pretend that there weren't 'better' and 'worse' places from which to spectate

That's why they are called VIP seats. If it wasn't a campaign event, he wouldn't have given seats only to his party for big donors.

I don't agree with that.

Doesn't matter. That's what a campaign event is.

 

[Idolater]

Handing out a large block of VIP tickets to the Republican National Committee, while not giving any to any other party, made it a campaign event. That's how it works.




No. It if wasn't a campaign event, he wouldn't have given VIP tickets to his party, only.



That's why they are called VIP seats. If it wasn't a campaign event, he wouldn't have given seats only to his party for big donors.



Doesn't matter. That's what a campaign event is.

It's not an uncontested fact, sorry to say. But, it's not the first time we've disagreed, and guaranteed it's not the last either.

 

[annabenedetti]

This was the view if you weren't a VIP:

Member of the general public? Outta luck on Independence Day.

 

[annabenedetti]

How Trump Instantly Blew Up Weeks Of Pious DOJ Denials About Census Change

“Meritless.”
“Frivolous.”
A “conspiracy theory” that “hinges on wordplay.”

This is how the Department of Justice described the efforts by its legal foes to connect the Trump administration’s push to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census to the partisan motives of a deceased GOP operative.

But comments last week by President Trump suggest that his administration and the operative, GOP gerrymandering guru Thomas Hofeller, did in fact share a similar goal: a new method of redistricting that would exclude non-citizens from the count used to draw legislative districts.

Hofeller secretly studied the effect of such an overhaul — in an unpublished 2015 analysis that concluded that it would be “functionally unworkable” without a census citizenship question — and said it “would be advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites.”

The Department of Justice vehemently denied there was any connection between Hofeller’s memo and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision last year to add the question, despite Hofeller being the first person to raise to the Trump transition team the issue of the census citizenship question.

But on Friday, when asked why he was trying to re-add the question to the census, President Trump told reporters, “You need it for Congress, for districting.”
​

 

[The Barbarian]

No wonder he lies. Every time he tells the truth, it blows up in his face.

 

[Lon]

Lon, saying you believe it's similar doesn't really illustrate why anyone else should.


Well, first off, it isn't "real or metaphorical." It was literally set out, in clear, unambiguous language, it's metaphorical. That's part of what I'm speaking to though when I talk about your bias and how it distorts your perception. I'll have a couple of other examples later on in this, at least one illustrated with your help.

As to this point, more particularly, it's not about judging the weight of his life. It's about this piece of fruit he's put out for consumption. You only hammer at his vocation and expand the consideration because the singular is hard to defend. It's that bias pulling out the stops, Lon.

On my noting that part of this is found in your larger agreement with Dobson and lack of serious difference that I think colors your thinking about him in this particular.

Well, I wrote: What did you differ with him on that mattered before I read this article? What's the last thing of importance that comes to mind?

So you think somewhat differing with him seeing, no publishing his visit constitutes differing with him on something that mattered? Something important? Really. I'll try to find stronger words to contextualize important then. I mean a difference on principle, not methodology. If you like his haircut but don't think he should have had one before Lent, it's not exactly a thing of moment, Lon.

This part is simply quibbling whether 1) I have overt fondness and 2) whether that colors my judgement. In a word, 'no.' It doesn't. I simply was shocked. There are some TOLers that'd have no problem saying 'this pastor should be horsewhipped.' RATHER, it was simply that I'd NEVER (ever) thought I'd hear these words coming from you. At this point, as I've said previously, we can drop this. I was wrong. Further? You stand by it. That's the end of it then. I can't make any impact, thus it is over. I DO think two years perspective may do much better than my poor attempt. I'm not sure how to graciously step aside at this point.

 

[Town Heretic]

But he did. You see, the Republican National Committee was given a large number of VIP tickets to distribute to big donors or anyone else to whom they wanted to show a favor. Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, etc. got nothing.

So you see, Trump did indeed turn it into a campaign event.

Didn't know that. Thanks. I withdraw my early, guarded comment evidencing surprise and not quote resembling praise.

I am no longer surprised and he remains the Wizard of Id.

 

[ok doser]

It's not an uncontested fact, sorry to say. But, it's not the first time we've disagreed, and guaranteed it's not the last either.

in a campaign year, everything is going to be seen by the unhinged left as a campaign event

you might as well argue with a rutabaga

 

[ok doser]

Soccer is gay. Unless girls play it. Then it's just silly.

what if the girls who are playing it are gay?

 

[ok doser]

No,that wasn't what I was saying.

This thread isn't really about the children (more of political concerns about Trump) but more about how we ourselves respond during this next year regarding these children, young adults, and some older. Our actions and words are important. We need to be indignant, while carrying dignity simply because we all (as people, as a nation) must come to a mutual table to be able to do anything about it.

Rather then, I was talking to Town about horsewhipping a pastor at length, because it was a public statement and I believe it harsh. Do we need to go on about it? :nono: It is part of my consternation that we are shooting one another with words, including the pastor and Trump, but nothing is being actually done. That bothers me. I think we are capable of better.

I think that topic is played out (at least for me). I'm moving along as I said, BUT my comments weren't about you, dear Anna. I was simply telling you why I'd spent a bit of time on a side topic.

I incredibly agree with you that children should be the focus of a good many of the threads at this point in time and that the better we are able to distance from the poor politics (I agree with you on this too - I think we (as a nation) are doing a terrible job. We weren't ready, but certainly some efforts are better than others. This all comes at a hard time, when we are working at deporting illegal aliens, vetting ones (mostly Mexicans) who are here that are working and not a burden, and then suddenly thousands are at our borders trying to do the very thing the government under Bush, Obama, and now Trump had tried to correct in the first place (more politics sorry, I'm just trying to paint the difficulty, not ignore children).

Could we streamline adoptions? I know this too is vetting BUT it then would become the financial and upbringing responsibility of anyone who cared enough. What about an orphanage or two? I don't particularly think they are best, but at least there is school, play, 3 square meals, and a few people who would care for them as well as an avenue for adoptions (might not be optimal, just brainstorming).

-Lon

told you all earlier Lon - nobody cares about the children, anna least of all - they're only a convenient tool with which to attack trump