[Patrick Murtha]

Andrew,

I should hope that no one here is so uncivil and dishonest as to reject those things that are redemptive in anyone, nor should anyone be so daft and deceived as support a man's works that are wrong out of blind loyalty.

My point is simply that I tire of the hypocrisy. All of the true faults of our president are brought out like gossip, while all the true faults of our previous president and the previous Democratic nominee are glossed over and "justified."

For myself, I oppose all things that I believe are wrong and support all things that are right, regardless of the man or woman who does them.

The timing of my writing this should not be suspicious at all since during the previous administration I was not here. Forgive me if you thought I was justifying any falsehoods with the president. Though I do support our president in many things, I have been critical in many as well--one has been his "saying one things and then saying he never said that." (I have also been critical of Obama, who did the same; Clinton, who did the same; Bush, who did the same...)

My principle point was that we act as if what bad things that Trump does is something new, when it is nearly as old as Adam. History is my witness. And then we act as if Trump can do no good. Which is a ridiculous exaggeration.

So no, I do not defend Trump's lies or any wrong he does, but I will defend him when he speaks well and does well. Both I hope, we all do, as we would expect others to do for us.

Sincerely,
PM

[Roger Slater]

If you can't see the difference between Trump's relationship with the truth and Obama's, then I'm afraid we live on different planets and further discussion would be futile.

[Patrick Murtha]

Wasn't it Dr. Seuss who said, "A lie is a lie no matter how small"? Or "One lie, two lie. Red lie, blue lie"?

With a chuckle,
PM

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Patrick Murtha

I oppose all things that I believe are wrong and support all things that are right, regardless of the man or woman who does them.

That's a good policy. What things that you believe are right is Trump not getting due credit for?

[Jim Moonan]

Patrick: "My point is simply that I tire of the hypocrisy."

My counterpoint is that Trump has weaponized the hypocrisy inherent in politics to disarm any criticism of his own extreme degree of hypocrisy (and deceitfulness and lying and narcissism).

Patrick: "For myself, I say that anyone are to be condemned for anything illegal. But they are to be praised for that which is praiseworthy--whether it be a Clinton administration, a Bush administration, an Obama administration, or a Trump administration."

I will give Trump the dubious distinction of being the most litigious human being the world has ever known. That, combined with the distinction of being the most unethically materialistic human being alive today and the distinction of being the poster boy for narcissism and serial lying makes for the perfect storm by which we are being battered at present.

As for giving praise where praise is due, how about giving HRC credit for calling him exactly what he is: Deplorable.
x

[John Isbell]

I would just say that saying nice things about everyone is not to my mind an intrinsic virtue, and is sometimes downright wrong. Compassion for all beings is somewhat different, and I do hope I have some compassion for the narrow, narrow universe Donald Trump has chosen to inhabit. Certainly admiring leaders because they are leaders seems to me egregiously ill-advised, as history abundantly reveals.
Anyway, enough on this topic.

Cheers,
John

[Quincy Lehr]

What on earth is the point of civility with Trump? Have other recent presidents lied? Of course! With disastrous consequences? Yes. (Trump has yet to quite equal "Iraq has WMDs" for sheer destructive force, but it's early days.) There is something that is obviously more brazen about Trump, less Machiavellian than a profoundly intellectually uncurious septuagenarian man-baby who can't piss right anymore and who's angry and forgetful and has virtually no impulse control. Clinton would have started wars, had she won. Of course she would have. She would have been unlikely to come up with the justification on the fly, change it the next day, and petulantly insist that she never said anything like the first judgment. Sure, you're still at war (or whatever), but minus the level of clownish, overtly malicious incompetence Trump brings to the table.

[Roger Slater]

His latest lie to Trudeau puts him at a whole new level. We have him on tape now admitting (a) that when he met to discuss trade with Trudeau he had no idea whether Canada had a trade surplus with the US, i.e., that he went into the meeting without even the most basic knowledge of what he was talking about, but (b) he didn't care at all and insisted that Canada has a surplus even after Trudeau repeatedly assured him it was not the case.

No other lying politician we've ever had would have told a demonstrable lie like that in a negotiation with someone who knew the verifiable truth. Nor would any other politician have entered into a high-level meeting with a foreign leader and not known the basic facts that could fit on an index card or be scribbled in pen on the palm of one's hand.

And certainly no other leader would then have the nerve to boast about going into the meeting so unprepared and then trying to bullshit his way through it.

[Jim Moonan]

You beat me to it Roger.

Here is the article.
x

[James Brancheau]

To translate Quincy for Trump voters: he's pretty dumb.