Trump Presidency

[madhatter]

10 Reasons I Like Donald Trump, From A Female, Former-Democrat Immigrant
Donald Trump is the perfect president to counter the D.C. swamp and the foreign policy blob.
Saritha PrabhuBy Saritha Prabhu
NOVEMBER 4, 2019

As a voter who lives far away from the Beltway bubble, I increasingly find myself harboring an uncomfortable secret: I like Donald Trump, and think he’s the perfect president for these times.

Now, I know that’s a big no-no. In fact, I probably should keep it to myself. After all, the mainstream media has been working non-stop to make me and countless others hate the president and see him as Public Enemy No. 1.

I’m also decidedly not the kind of voter who is supposed to like Trump; in fact, all my intersecting identities are supposed to hate Trump with a vengeance: I’m a woman, a legal immigrant, a person of color (never liked the term), a former Democrat, and a third-party voter in 2016.

Liking Trump openly is very difficult these days, and it is not recommended that you do so. It’s especially difficult in the social circles I move in.

If you’ve noticed, even some Trump voters and Trump-supporting commentators say things like, “I don’t like Trump, but I like his policies,” or “He has flaws, but…” which is a neat way of putting distance between oneself and the president.

Enumerating the reasons Trump is alright is especially necessary because of the constant vituperation he faces everyday from different liberal quarters. Here are 10 reasons I like Trump.

First, he is sui generis, a singularly unique individual who has single-handedly transformed almost everything about American politics, by sheer force of his personality and ideas. Presidents dream of being transformational, and Trump has transformed politics in ways many presidents can only dream about.

He has transformed both political parties, the mainstream media, and the presidential campaigns, and moved the Overton Window on many issues. He has shown many of our institutions for what they actually are and for what we suspected them to be, and broken their brains in the process. His methods may not always be good, but the results have been okay.

Second, by loudly questioning everything in his unorthodox way he has made us re-examine many things: our bloated bureaucracy, some of our egoistic federal civil servants who believe they’re in charge of our republic, the much-vaunted liberal international order, our awful elites and the meritocracy that produced them. Most important, his foreign policy ideas and actions have generated a long- overdue discussion on America’s global policeman role and its unsustainable costs to our people.

Third, he loves America, and his love is genuine, palpable and almost retro. We could do with a little of that nowadays, swimming as we are in a sea of self-loathing, self-flagellation, and history-rewriting from the left. America, of course, has its flaws and sins, but it is refreshing to be reminded by our president that it still stands tall.

Fourth, he says what he thinks, is remarkably accessible, and is probably the only president who can’t seem to resist answering questions thrown at him. In this, he demonstrates a guilelessness and, shall we say, honesty quite unlike any politician, past or present. It gets him into trouble, of course, but also gets him admirers.

His rhetorical style is, to say the least, unconventional but often effective. By talking like a real person and not trafficking in platitudes and liberal pieties, he has made it difficult for conventional politicians to do their thing.



Fifth, he is clearly a non-ideologue and pragmatic, shown in spades in the way he has refashioned the Republican Party’s orthodoxies on trade, immigration, and foreign intervention.

Sixth, his care for American voters seems genuine, especially toward the people who voted for him and show him unflagging support. He is indeed an odd president: a Manhattan billionaire who has a “blue collar sensibility” and relates to voters who’ve suffered bipartisan neglect from D.C. politicians for decades.



And may I say that his rallies are a thing to behold: all camaraderie and affection between Trump and the crowd, characterized by his playful, extemporaneous riffs, funny and sarcastic, with the underlying theme being a conspiratorial partnership against the smug, self-dealing ruling class and media elites that need to be defeated. No wonder Democratic leaders are anxious about the 2020 election—they can’t compete with Trump’s offbeat charisma.

Not to mention that he’s funny, but you need a special sensor to appreciate it, which the dour, humorless left doesn’t have anymore. he was killing it at the kentucky rally...

Seventh, he has had the greatest influence, perhaps, in transforming how we talk about needless, endless foreign military incursions. He expresses in clear, succinct terms why America’s global policeman role is getting to be untenable, as in his press conference after the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, when he stated, “But the United States taxpayer is not going to pay for the next fifty years (for endlessly staying in the region).”

One of his finer moments came when he mused movingly during a recent campaign rally about being present at Dover Air Force Base, seeing caskets return from war zones and witnessing the families’ grief. Would that we have more commander-in-chiefs caring—and publicly at that—about dead American soldiers more than gallivanting around the Middle East looking for civil wars to support endlessly.

Eighth, he has challenged China, our most important geopolitical threat, and done what hasn’t been attempted in our status quo politics so far.

Ninth, he says he’s “president of America and not president of the world,” and that American citizens have to be taken care of first before we take care of the world. What a novel idea. This should be said and practiced more often.

In a sane, common-sense world, Trump’s recent United Nations address touting these ideas would be lauded; instead they were pilloried as isolationist and dangerous. But that is the cognitively dissonant media world we live in now—what is pragmatic is framed as radical and transgressive.

Tenth and lastly, I like his chutzpah and pugilistic style, with its underlying theme of “Honey Badger don’t care.” It’s perfectly suited for this moment, where the overarching issue is: Who is really in charge in this republic, the voters or arrogant, unelected federal bureaucrats who think they know best and try to override the will of voters? He seems uniquely suited to take on the combined onslaught coming from many quarters.

Obviously, I don’t like or agree with everything Trump has said and done. Equally obviously, he has moral and ethical failings like many in D.C., but with a difference: he’s no hypocrite and has never pretended to be something he’s not, which can’t be said of his many critics and adversaries. But his flaws and missteps are small potatoes compared to the decades-long, monumental corruption and dishonesty of our ruling and media elite, and the contempt they have toward voters.

The most fun and illuminating part has been watching the mainstream media, academia, Hollywood, and the Democratic Party rip their tolerant masks off and show themselves for what they actually are: vicious, intolerant people who are dangerous when backed into a corner.

I’m now squarely in the camp who believes that Trump is alright, and that nothing he says or does is worse than what the ruling class and media elites do and are capable of. He is far better—or at least far less worse—than them. Truly, as someone said, the office sought the man.

and that is why there isn't a D candidate out there that can take him on...

[madhatter]

[Rez]

What the Democrats have been doing for the last three years is projecting their own crimes on Trump as a means to distract and cover up. This is not just "politics as usual". Other than ignorant people and women and beta males driving cars with #Resist bumper stickers, the Democrats are going to have a tough time finding votes.

[Kpdemello]

Sondland changes his testimony, admits quid pro quo:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/05/poli ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think he got scared of getting nailed for lying to Congress? Or some deep state/democrat plotting got to him?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[madhatter]

Sondland changes his testimony, admits quid pro quo:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/05/poli ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think he got scared of getting nailed for lying to Congress? Or some deep state/democrat plotting got to him?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

clearly you are incapable of reading...he provides zero new evidence...no one cares what his revised opinion is...he doesn't "admit" anything....

[madhatter]

US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland on Monday sent the committees a three-page addition to his testimony, saying he had remembered a September 1 conversation in which he told a top aide to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that the security aid was linked to investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 election.

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland said.

no one cares what his revised opinion is, no one cares what he presumed might happen...

there was no public statement and aid did occur...

[Rez]

There was no crime. This is yet another fabrication by the Dems and wholeheartedly supported by the media.

By the way, has anybody checked in on the children in cages at the border? Are they okay?

[XtremeJibber2001]

Sondland changes his testimony, admits quid pro quo:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/05/poli ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think he got scared of getting nailed for lying to Congress? Or some deep state/democrat plotting got to him?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Colbert gets extra credit for the skiing reference ... anyone else remember Lindsey Graham two weeks ago saying "If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing."? Anyway ... some comedy:

[madhatter]

Sondland changes his testimony, admits quid pro quo:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/05/poli ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think he got scared of getting nailed for lying to Congress? Or some deep state/democrat plotting got to him?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Colbert gets extra credit for the skiing reference ... anyone else remember Lindsey Graham two weeks ago saying "If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing."? Anyway ... some comedy:

I see the problem now...

[Kpdemello]

anyone else remember Lindsey Graham two weeks ago saying "If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.

There are quite a few Trump supporters who are going to have to backtrack from that type of statement if they want to stand by their man.

Anyway ... some comedy:

It's comedy, but also a pretty solid application of common sense. Funniest part is Sondland basically saying that quid pro quo would be illegal, and now here he is saying there's in fact quid pro quo. Only reason I can think of that he changed his tune is fear of being prosecuted after Congress approached him to try and reconcile all the other evidence that conflicted with his prior testimony.

[madhatter]

anyone else remember Lindsey Graham two weeks ago saying "If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing.

There are quite a few Trump supporters who are going to have to backtrack from that type of statement if they want to stand by their man.

Anyway ... some comedy:

It's comedy, but also a pretty solid application of common sense. Funniest part is Sondland basically saying that quid pro quo would be illegal, and now here he is saying there's in fact quid pro quo. Only reason I can think of that he changed his tune is fear of being prosecuted after Congress approached him to try and reconcile all the other evidence that conflicted with his prior testimony.

maybe you can post a link to that? he never says that there is a quid pro quo nor does he provide any evidence of a quid pro quo...there's nothing material in his revised testimony...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/p ... trump.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kpdemello]

maybe you can post a link to that? he never says that there is a quid pro quo nor does he provide any evidence of a quid pro quo...there's nothing material in his revised testimony...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/p ... trump.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Woof, that's some pretty hard core willful ignorance, dude. From the link I posted earlier:

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland said.

The above literally meets the definition of quid pro quo - "a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something"

[madhatter]

maybe you can post a link to that? he never says that there is a quid pro quo nor does he provide any evidence of a quid pro quo...there's nothing material in his revised testimony...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/p ... trump.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Woof, that's some pretty hard core willful ignorance, dude. From the link I posted earlier:

"I now recall speaking individually with Mr. (Andriy) Yermak, where I said resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," Sondland said.

The above literally meets the definition of quid pro quo - "a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something"

seriously? sondland himself now recalls having said to yermak that "likely" would not resume at a meeting in september...

and that some how proves a quid pro quo occurred between trump and Zelensky? in july? in regards to biden? for political gain? are you fvcking nuts?

turns out sondlands "hunch" was wrong... aid did occur...

keep us posted huh?

all ya gotta do is believe...

as always it a stretch of reality for your case to have any credence...

[madhatter]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/whi ... trump-2017" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[madhatter]

From Sondland's deposition (pp 105-106): "Q: Okay, so when you telephone the President, tell us what happened." Sondland: "I asked him an open ended question: what do you want from Ukraine? And as I recall he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said I want nothing. I want NO QUID PRO QUO. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. And I said what does that mean? And he said I want him to do what he ran on"

Sondland (pp 130): "I recall hearing multiple reasons why the aid was being held from various people. I never heard it was being held specifically to investigate the Biden's. I never heard the name "Biden" mentioned with aid."

The MSM is deliberately misrepresenting his testimony.