A conservative media view of Trump, Trumpsters United, and connections to Russia

Bill_Coley

By no reasonable observer's standard is "The Weekly Standard" a liberal publication. By every assessment of which I'm aware, it's a pillar of conservative thought and politics in the United States. Which makes the magazine's new take-down of Donald Trump, his campaign's handling of its connections with Russia, and Trumpster Nation's defense of both, so compelling.

I invite all CD participants, but especially our resident Trumpsters, to review the entire editorial - found HERE - and tell us what's wrong with the editors' argument which centers on the sudden, unexpected, and indefensible disappearance of norms among current conservatives/Republicans/Trumps supporters. If you find factual errors, cite them and then demonstrate their error.

As an introduction to the WS editorial, I offer these pull quotes: (emphasis added)

"Among the more dispiriting aspects of this sordid affair is the untroubled, nothing-to-see-here-folks attitude of Trump surrogates, Republican officeholders, and most of the conservative media. Once upon a time, conservatives were keenly aware of the importance of norms. They are the reason a society does not need to spell out laws to govern all possible behaviors. It is precisely the normative pursuit of virtue that has allowed America to be a land of freedom and liberty. Rick Santorum used to make this point on the campaign trail all the time. Bill Bennett wrote an entire series of books about it.

"Republicans ought to be castigating the president over the Trump Tower meeting, not covering for him. Even if they support him more broadly. And what would it cost them? Nothing. They could say, “While the meeting does not appear to have been illegal, it was unethical and has no place in American politics. Trump and his campaign were wrong to do it and should be ashamed of it.” You can say that and still support the president, still want to vote for him in 2020, still want The Wall....

"We suspect Republicans will come to regret their new “anything goes” rationalization. Will it be okay for Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign to seek copies of Donald Trump’s still-secret tax returns from hackers working for North Korea? Or for Bernie Sanders operatives to meet with Iranian regime cutouts for dirt on Trump cabinet officials?

"It wasn’t long ago that Republicans were concerned about foreign meddling in U.S. elections. In 1996, when evidence surfaced that China was funneling money to the Democratic party, including the Clinton-Gore campaign—remember the fundraiser at the Buddhist temple in Hacienda Heights attended by Al Gore?—GOP leaders demanded an investigation. In 2015, when credible evidence emerged that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had used her position to enrich the Clinton Foundation, Republicans called it another indication that she lacked the character to be president.

"But the fact that Trump and his closest advisers were keen to get their hands on opposition research generated by America’s greatest foreign adversary is no big deal for Republicans. How far we’ve come in just two years."

GaoLu

Bill, something you clearly don't understand at all (or maybe you do, but you just love to troll), is that people who are both pro-American and Christian aren't usually driven by Party lines or overly loyal to any person. The best people fail at times. Donald Trump does. Billium Coley does. Even Dave does (though he doesn't know it). We are interested in the Kingdom of God and favor people who make choices more nearly Biblical than those who don't.

So, we are not afraid to be honest, at all. "Trumpsters" are proud to be "trumpsters" not because of Trump, but because he is God's man for the day and God is clearly blessing America through that man (whatever he is). We are actually Christians.

I know that is far outside anything you have previously been able to grasp (or admit), but there it is.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
Bill, something you clearly don't understand at all (or maybe you do, but you just love to troll), is that people who are both pro-American and Christian aren't usually driven by Party lines or overly loyal to any person. The best people fail at times. Donald Trump does. Billium Coley does. Even Dave does (though he doesn't know it). We are interested in the Kingdom of God and favor people who make choices more nearly Biblical than those who don't.

So, we are not afraid to be honest, at all. "Trumpsters" are proud to be "trumpsters" not because of Trump, but because he is God's man for the day and God is clearly blessing America through that man (whatever he is). We are actually Christians.

I know that is far outside anything you have previously been able to grasp (or admit), but there it is.

Thanks for your response, Gao Lu.

Granted, I asked you to comment on the argument made by the Weekly Standard's editorial board in the article to which I linked and from which I quoted. And it's true that in my OP, I made no comment whatsoever about "people who are both pro-American and Christian."

And of course there's the matter of what we now call the "implied restrictions" of threads (a concept that was new to me until THIS POST and your seeming consent to it HERE) The clearly implied restrictions of this thread - which I get to set because this is "my thread" - is that you will not post a response that is not directly responsive to the question(s) I raise in the OP. In this thread's OP, the ONLY question I raised asked you to comment on the Weekly Standard article: its merits and factual accuracy.

I hope that now, since from the other thread I know you accept "implied restrictions" and believe they should be adhered to by other posters, I am right to expect your adherence to those of this thread and thus, your direct response to the question I asked.

But other than that, thanks for your response, Gao Lu.

GaoLu

You remain not my mother. I wrote what I thought was relevant. We have different interests on the same matter.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
You remain not my mother. I wrote what I thought was relevant. We have different interests on the same matter.

But surely you noticed the restrictions implied in my OP! In reformed's thread, you said "we would think" "any rationale person would know the restrictions were implied." So I know you believe there can be implied restrictions in threads that other posters should follow ("implied" meaning not real, and made up by the OP only as needed for subsequent posts). So since you accepted "implied" restrictions that weren't real in his thread, why won't you accept them in mine?!

GaoLu

I do think so and agree. I shall make that judgment call, not you.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
I do think so and agree. I shall make that judgment call, not you.

So you "think" and "agree" that in threads, guest posters should follow an OP's implied restrictions, which are, as I characterized them, "not real, and made up by the OP only as needed for subsequent posts." That much I understand. What I don't understand is if you think in his thread I should follow reformed's implied restrictions, which aren't real, why in my thread shouldn't you follow MY implied restrictions, which also aren't real?

GaoLu

Huh? What have you been smoking this time?

I haven’t seen you show any such respect for anyone. Dude, your well-spring of life seems to be hate and poison and tearing down others. Must feel awful. Yet you flail impotently trying to bully/mother others. A curious study, quite informative about your kind.

Probably I said the same thing you did above (who coukd know?) just less twisted than you did.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
Huh? What have you been smoking this time?

It simply struck me as odd that in reformed's thread you welcomed implied restrictions that weren't real, but in my thread, you don't welcome implied restrictions that aren't real. To me that sounds like a double standard. But perhaps it's not.

To be fully transparent, it also struck me as odd that in your post before last, you seemed to contend that YOU "shall make (the) judgment call" as to what WE (or I!) conclude about implied restrictions in threads.

@GaoLu said:
"I do think so and agree. I shall make that judgment call, not you."

I didn't quite understand how YOU had the authority to decide for either US or ME whether there were implied restrictions in a thread. But perhaps I should.

I haven’t seen you show any such respect for anyone. Dude, your well-spring of life seems to be hate and poison and tearing down others. Must feel awful. Yet you flail impotently trying to bully/mother others. A curious study, quite informative about your kind.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

Probably I said the same thing you did above (who coukd know?) just less twisted than you did.

I can pretty much guarantee that you didn't say the same thing I did.

GaoLu

@Bill_Coley said:

@GaoLu said:
Huh? What have you been smoking this time?

It simply struck me as odd that in reformed's thread you welcomed implied restrictions that weren't real, but in my thread, you don't welcome implied restrictions that aren't real. To me that sounds like a double standard. But perhaps it's not.

To be fully transparent, it also struck me as odd that in your post before last, you seemed to contend that YOU "shall make (the) judgment call" as to what WE (or I!) conclude about implied restrictions in threads.

That is transparent all right. Did you honestly think and believe all that?

Are you so addicted to twisting, deceiving, mocking (nearly always futile) that you can't stop your own momentum at any cost? [Billium is all over your shirt.]

@GaoLu said:
"I do think so and agree. I shall make that judgment call, not you."

I didn't quite understand how YOU had the authority to decide for either US or ME whether there were implied restrictions in a thread. But perhaps I should.

You should understand, I repeat it enough. You are (urp) still not my mother. I find that such things are nearly impossible for you to grasp--dude, you just are not. I will decide for myself what is appropriate and I am not asking you. Your bullying and mothering don't work very well.

Let me ask a meaningful question, Bill, who has authority in your life?

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

I am getting a great kick out of this. From the man who...[we all know what].

Probably I said the same thing you did above (who coukd know?) just less twisted than you did.

I can pretty much guarantee that you didn't say the same thing I did.

I am glad you agree with what I said for once. You said the same thing and then twisted it all up. Very old, hackneyed Billum it is.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:

That is transparent all right. Did you honestly think and believe all that?

Are you so addicted to twisting, deceiving, mocking (nearly always futile) that you can't stop your own momentum at any cost? [Billium is all over your shirt.
You should understand, I repeat it enough. You are (urp) still not my mother. I find that such things are nearly impossible for you to grasp--dude, you just are not. I will decide for myself what is appropriate and I am not asking you. Your bullying and mothering don't work very well.

Let me ask a meaningful question, Bill, who has authority in your life?

I am getting a great kick out of this. From the man who...[we all know what].

I am glad you agree with what I said for once. You said the same thing and then twisted it all up. Very old, hackneyed Billum it is.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

GaoLu

Experience tells me that your kind never stop stuttering...ever. Even when their brains are exhausted toast and can't think of anything to say.

Bill_Coley

@GaoLu said:
Experience tells me that your kind never stop stuttering...ever. Even when their brains are exhausted toast and can't think of anything to say.

It's this kind of content in your responses to me, Gao Lu, that serves as an identity check: It assures me that the post indeed comes from you.

GaoLu

Facutal non-Billium Proof. Without an internet link.

GaoLu

On a more positive note, there’s no denying that the Democratic party is splintering. Yet it is sad in a way. There was a time when they had something to offer, when they had a message. You could like the message or not. Often enough it was good.

Today the once-vibrant party has descended into histrionics. That once useful voice has been ensnared by irrelevance, lack of a message, corrupt leadership and has little left but a few puny fists spouting rabid Trump-phobia. Most Americans just don't feel that phobia. They feel hope and they see Trump doing great things. They see America growing stronger, greater, literally by the day.

I think Capehart (liberal, gay, Democrat-loving, intellectual, Pullitzer-prize winning journalist--everything a liberal would love) said it well:

“There are a lot of people out there, particularly Democrats, who are saying the Democrats have no message...they know they’re against President Trump but they don’t know what they’re for.”

[Deleted User]

@GaoLu said:
I think Capehart (liberal, gay, Democrat-loving, intellectual, Pullitzer-prize winning journalist--everything a liberal would love) said it well:

“There are a lot of people out there, particularly Democrats, who are saying the Democrats have no message...they know they’re against President Trump but they don’t know what they’re for.”

Does that not describe the state of brainwashed folks rather well?

GaoLu

Indeed!