Connect with us

Opinions

Trump: “DO SOMETHING”

Published

on

Trump DO SOMETHING

In his latest Twitter rant, President of the United States Donald J. Trump implored someone (Republicans? Robert Mueller? Twitter users?) to “DO SOMETHING!”

On one hand, he has a point. With so much focus on the alleged collusion with Russia from within his campaign, it’s conspicuous that the media isn’t nearly as focused on stories of his former challenger Hillary Clinton’s own connections with Russia. From the Uranium One story to recent revelations that the Clinton campaign, DNC, and FBI funded the Steele Dossier, the President’s frustration with the media seems to be vindicated once again.

On the other hand, there are already actions taking place to go after Clinton. The House and Senate have separate investigations into Uranium One as well as how the Justice Department and James Comey handled the Clinton email scandal. These things may not be moving as quickly as the President would like, but they’re moving.

What really has the President up in arms is the leaked report that special counsel Robert Mueller has filed charges in the Russia investigation that could yield arrests this week. The charges were sealed by a federal judge, supposedly to prevent those facing charges from fleeing.

Here’s the President’s Tweetstorm from this morning:

Making things worse

I’m sympathetic with the President’s frustrations. A little. However, reacting this way through Twitter is counterproductive.

Unless he knows something about the charges that we don’t, there’s a very good chance the charges are being brought up against Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign manager, over actions that he took before he joined the Trump campaign. While this would shine a negative light on the campaign’s vetting process and further challenge the President’s claim that he only hires “the best people,” it likely wouldn’t link back to the campaign or the President himself.

Buzzfeed is reporting the charges may stem from Manafort’s activities in 2012 and 2013:

FBI Probe Of Paul Manafort Focuses On 13 “Suspicious” Wire Transfers

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jasonleopold/fbi-probe-of-paul-manafort-focuses-on-13-suspicious-wire?utm_term=.lbM5ARd98#.djXDQnAwKThe FBI’s investigation of Donald Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, includes a keen focus on a series of suspicious wire transfers in which offshore companies linked to Manafort moved more than $3 million all over the globe between 2012 and 2013.

Much of the money came into the United States.

These transactions — which have not been previously reported — drew the attention of federal law enforcement officials as far back as 2012, when they began to examine wire transfers to determine if Manafort hid money from tax authorities or helped the Ukrainian regime close to Russian President Vladimir Putin launder some of the millions it plundered through corrupt dealings.

Buzzfeed is the TMZ of politics to me. They occasionally get decent scoops but they mostly peddle garbage. With that said, credit goes where credit is due so if this turns out to be the case, kudos to Buzzfeed.

The President is coming across as defensive, scared, and impotent. Posting “DO SOMETHING” in all-caps on Twitter is something unimaginable from a President until Trump moved into the Oval Office. His desire to fuel his unyielding base combined with his tendency to play the victim card regularly might score him points with a quarter of the nation, but his actions exude a weakness to most Americans and people around the world.

Instead of whining on Twitter, he should be letting whatever Mueller is doing play out. This verges on sounding like desperation and an attempt to redirect before a hammer is dropped on his narrative. If nobody in his administration or his former campaign colluded with the Russians during election season, he shouldn’t even be concerned about any of this. He should be focusing on tax cuts, moving forward with the wall, and reengaging on Obamacare.

Fine, he’s not “presidential”

During the campaign, every action he took that didn’t seem like the reaction of a petulant adolescent had many in conservative media saying he’s acting more presidential. They called it a “pivot.” They expected him to grow into the role.

That hasn’t happened and it’s time to accept that. He even took a jab at himself while attacking Michael Moore over the weekend:

The point is this: this morning’s rant isn’t the first time he acted more like a Hollywood diva than the leader of the free world and it won’t be the last. I’m not going to call for the President to act mature. I’m ready to accept that he’ll never be “presidential” and hope for the best.

Final Thoughts

From Kellyanne Conway to Reince Priebus to John Kelly, many close to the President have tried to stop (or at least slow down) his embarrassing Tweets. It’s not going to happen. The ridicule from this morning’s “DO SOMETHING” plea will fade as all of his moments of weakness do. Whatever comes from the Mueller investigation, let’s hope it doesn’t cause the President to lose focus from the many important issues facing the nation today.

Former liberal who recently realized I've been a #Federalist the whole time. GOP fooled me into hating what I thought was conservatism. Now I see the light.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Federalists

How to debate your political enemies… and win

Published

on

How to debate your political enemies and win

It’s no secret that we live in a world of political division. Not only are liberals at war with conservatives, but both sides of the political spectrum are at war with themselves.

While my preference is unity, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen anytime soon, judging by social media. Since that’s the case, then people need to at least, learn how to debate effectively.

Here are four things to remember before getting into your next political debate:

1. Stop letting your opponent control the language

Until pregnant, pro-choice women start having fetus showers on a regular basis, it’s not a “fetus”. It’s a baby.

Until guns jump off the table, run down the street, and start shooting people on their own, it’s not “gun violence”. It’s just violence.

When you let your opponent control the language, you let them control the debate. You allow them the opportunity to soften their position through less controversial verbiage, making their position sound almost reasonable.

Call a spade a spade. Catering to politically correct double-speak is a form of soft tyranny.

2. Know your opponent and their tactics, then call them on it

I learned this one watching Ben Shapiro take on Piers Morgan in an interview regarding the 2nd Amendment. Ben had researched Piers’ tactics, and at the beginning of the interview, called him out on them, pointing out that Morgan has a tendency to resort to name-calling vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and attempts to paint his opponent as low intellect Neanderthals, whenever he ran out of talking points to support his position. Shapiro went on to say that he trusted that Morgan wouldn’t engage in those same tactics in their debate.

Morgan was instantly taken aback, batted his eyelashes innocently, and went into full denial mode. The interview went smoothly for a while, with Morgan refraining from his typical tactics, but true to form, reverted to his normal attacks when Shapiro had him backed into a corner, giving him the ammo he needed to point out that he was correct in his initial assessment of Morgan’s tactics.

I’ve implemented this strategy in many debates, and without fail, it’s been effective.

3. Don’t go on defense

It’s inevitable. In any debate, on any topic, your opponent is going to spend the bulk of their time, telling you why your position is wrong and why you’re a bad person for holding it. All too often, I see good people take this bait and retreat into a mode of defending themselves, rather than defending their position, or going on offense against their opponents position.

It’s a natural reaction to try and defend your character, morality or ethics when they come under attack. However, the second you do, you’ve just handed the debate to your opponent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been called a “gun nut that doesn’t care about children”. Until I learned the tactic of not taking that bait, my reaction was usually “I am not a gun nut and I love kids”. Now, my reaction is “If being a proponent of the basic, human right to self defense, not only for me, but for the protection of children, makes me a ‘nut,’ so be it. What I think is nutty is being opposed to those things.”

Guess which one of those reactions is more effective in winning the debate.

4. Don’t allow deflection

When people are losing a debate, they tend to drift into side topics. It’s not unusual for a pro-abortion advocate to drift into healthcare as a whole, or for a gun control advocate to drift into government provided “safety”.

Don’t follow people down these rabbit holes. Drag them right back out, and force them to stay on the topic of hand. The moment you start following them is the moment you’ve given them control to lead you to separate topics, control the debate, and muddy the waters of the original topic.

Debate is a healthy thing when done right. It’s done right when the right strategies are applied. So engage, but engage to win. I assume your position is worth it.

Continue Reading

Democrats

New Jersey’s new governor sees California as progressive model

Published

on

New Jerseys new governor sees California as progressive model

The next great progressive Democratic hope in 2020 is Phil Murphy.

You’ll know him real soon. Tuesday, he gets sworn in as Governor of New Jersey.

But Murphy has the personal wealth (he’s a former Goldman Sachs executive), the street cred (as President Obama’s Ambassador to Germany) and the fertile ground (Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by 13 points) to use the Garden State as a launching pad for his sense of progressive nirvana.

That nirvana? California! Murphy wants to make New Jersey into the next California.

That’s right. The state with the highest poverty rate in the nation, according to the Census Bureau. (How does your state compare? Go to page 27 of this fascinating Census report.)

So when Murphy says he sees California as a “model” to emulate, New Jersey residents in the know say “Uh-oh.”

And if they’re really smart they’ll say “U-Haul.”

California’s generous safety-net programs appear to have made poverty worse, according to local, mainstream-media coverage of the lowlights there including:

  • 55% of immigrant families (but only 30% of “native” families) receive some sort of means-tested benefits;
  • A sanctuary state;
  • restrictive land-use (anti-development) policies driving up the cost of housing; and
  • a welfare bureaucracy employing nearly one million people, many of whom might lose their jobs if their “customers” were to graduate off the dependency trap.

Murphy says he will “pursue creative reactions” and possibly challenge in court policies like the Republican tax bill recently signed by President Trump. But he also claims the “only thing we’ve promised is a stronger and fairer economy in this state,”  and quickly adds “that includes for organized labor.”

Whoa! Wait, what’s that? Did I hear a “fairer economy”? (This is when the unnecessary adjective warning goes off, heralding the addition of an adjective acting as an antonym for the word it’s modifying.)

But if the solution is the California-model of social services, there appears to be no end to the downward spiral of higher taxes, more poverty . . . and the public-sector Gravy Train grows and grows, gets longer and longer.

For Murphy, that may not be a bug, but a feature. That’s because there’s a tipping point, where there are simply enough Gravy Train passengers and beneficiaries (recipients and government employees, sometimes they’re both) that if they all get out and vote, the tax-and-spend-more progressives will win, no matter what.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

The 10 most genocidal leaders in history

Published

on

The 10 most genocidal leaders in history

Here is another list article from John Hawkins Grumpy Sloth website. This piece was written by Deena Lyon, and continues to warn those who love socialism siren song that it shall raise humanity up, and take care of humanity for a very long time.

Trouble is when you take the place of God himself and fear that people will turn on you, what can you do? You must shackle them in fear, up to threating and even carrying out the death sentence. You think big government will take care of the people, but more often than not, it becomes a weapon against the innocent and has murdered millions if not billions and trillions and googols of them. We as humans just never learn that we can’t better than or without God Almighty.

Most of the men listed here (sorry ladies, no devil women here) were leaders from the 20th Century. Only one man listed that took power in the late 19th Century.

Reference

The 10 Most Genocidal Leaders In World History

https://grumpysloth.com/10-genocidal-leaders-world-history/There must be a special place in Hell for the dictators on this list. The majority of them found Communism and/or Socialism to be the ultimate tool in committing mass murder. If you ever wonder how one person can kill millions just remember that government can be the most dangerous instrument known to mankind.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.