The Mendacity of “Hope” | Raucous Caucus | Tom Cushing | PleasantonWeekly.com |

Local Blogs

Raucous Caucus

By Tom Cushing

E-mail Tom Cushing

About this blog: The Raucous Caucus shares the southpaw perspectives of this Boomer on the state of the nation, the world, and, sometimes, other stuff. I enjoy crafting it to keep current, and occasionally to rant on some issue I care about deeply...  (More)

View all posts from Tom Cushing

The Mendacity of “Hope”

Uploaded: Jun 12, 2017

Last week’s Comey testimony and ensuing Romanian press conference* set up a black-and white confrontation between the former FBI Director and the current President (Mr. Comey, a Republican, was appointed by Mr. Trump’s immediate predecessor – those were the days, eh?). It seems impossible that the conflicting accounts of private meetings between the two could possibly be squared with each other.

So – who’s lying?

It will surprise no one that I believe it’s the Prez, for the following reasons:

o – the syntax: “I hope you will see your way clear” coming from any boss, much less the President, must be taken as a directive, rather than idle musing in a two-person setting. If your boss said that to you, would you dismiss it? **

It is also in character – especially if anyone accepts the ‘toddler theory’ that Trump is simply following his instincts as a private company CEO, who after all had much greater control over the organization in general, and subordinates in particular (and any security function specifically) than does any President. His own son then confirmed that this is how he gives orders. He is also fond of autocrats, and has been compared to different Don stating a threat in thinly-veiled terms (e.g., ‘nice business you got – Hope nothing happens to it’).

o – past history: the incumbent’s flexible relationship with the truth has been amply documented – as has his adversary’s reputation for veracity and rectitude. Each has faced ‘defining moments’ that have confirmed their respective characters.

o – circumstances: the fact that others, including the Attorney General to whom the FBI reports, were ejected from the early White House meeting provides a possible indication of ‘guilty intent.’

o – contemporaneous records: Mr. Comey kept copious notes of his meetings, each made immediately thereafter. Those are generally pretty persuasive evidence. He had not been dismissed, and therefore had no revenge-based reason to record or 'spin' such notes. He had formed an intention not to follow the repeated directive, however, and had the foresight to follow a G-Man’s habit of making a record while memory was fresh.

If Mr. Trump has ‘tapes’ I hope he releases them (he does not, almost certainly). His reference to that possibility could easily be interpreted as an attempt to bully Mr. Comey – also a habit born of years as the autocrat of a company he owns. The empty “Complaint” threatened by attorney Kasowitz also fits here, as an habitual, Roy Cohn-style legal maneuver designed to inflict damage on an adversary. *** It’s a tack he’d threatened more than twenty times during the campaign, and followed through-on twice.

o – repeated directives/eventual firing: when your boss gives you repeated orders that you do not follow … you get canned. As Comey eventually did. If they weren't orders, then ... never mind, the Prez confirmed that the firingwas over dissatisfaction with the continuing Russia probe.

o – possible parsing: when Trump was asked on Friday about Comey’s statements, he said “I did not say those words.” When pressed, he repeated that phrase. It seems possible that the Prez was really saying “that’s not an exact quote.” True or not, such a claim cannot be completely disproven from a private conversation. That it deflects the question away from its obvious intent to ask about the truth of the testimony may have been its intent. That’s why there’s cross-examination in open court, but Trump controlled the news conference forum.

o – the Big Picture: let’s not forget that the underlying issue of ultimate importance here is that the cursed Russians consciously hacked our elections – The Bedrock Institution of US democracy. I have to ask: what has this Prez done to demonstrate that he understands the gravity of this attack, and punish it? If you come up dry – well, me too. More to come on this topic.

So, that’s what I think – howsabout you?


* the poor Romanian leader must’ve questioned his career choice during that Rose Garden presser on Friday.

** Comey did speak of ‘seagulls’ elsewhere in his testimony, and seems to have followed the ‘seagull theory’ of deferring action on orders from a scattered boss (who swoops in, dumps a load on your desk and flies off – you wait ‘til the same load is dropped multiple times before taking action, hoping s/he’ll forget). It often works.

*** Reportedly, such Complaint would be filed with the Inspector General - apparently the same office that Trump aides threatened to fire en masse, and whose budget has been deeply cut by the Administration. I bet they can't wait to go to work on his behalf! Just guessing here, but I'll be surprised if any actual Complaint gets filed.

Comments

 +   9 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 12, 2017 at 11:55 am

Don't think that there's much to debate here about the honesty of Comey versus the honesty of Trump. I don't think that even the most fervent of Trump supporters can claim with a straight face that they think that Donald Trump is an honest man. My bet is that any Trump supporters who show up here will instead try to change the subject so that they avoid having to try to defend Trump's honesty.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Quail Run Parent, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jun 12, 2017 at 2:06 pm

Quail Run Parent is a registered user.

Boil it all down and if Comey 100% truthful there really isn't much there that will hurt Trump. Can't charge a sitting a President and questionable (or debatable) if telling Comey indirectly to kill the flynn investigation is 'illegal'. For sure inappropriate, but whoever said Trump was appropriate? Well, his defenders certainly do. It would be up to congress to decide and guess who controls both houses. Yes, the GOP. Impeachment unlikely until there clearly is crime with smoking gun and real proof (beyond he said he said).


 +   19 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jun 12, 2017 at 10:44 pm

Jake Waters is a registered user.

You are correct Tom, I am not surprised that you dislike Trump, so much so, that you have created an editorial fantasizing your belief on how Trump is wrong. First, Trump should have fired Comey the minute he was President. If Hillary actually won (a scary thought I don't want to have) she probably would have fired him. Comey acted like a confused coward. He wouldn't pull the trigger on Hillary when he had her dead to rights, nor would he investigate Lynch on her behavior with Clinton on the tarmac. Secondly, his writing of notes doesn't mean anything more than what he felt went down at the time. It is his interpretation typed on an FBI laptop. I wasn't in the room, were you? Thirdly, he committed a crime by leaking through a third party to the press. You should listen to Allan Dershowitz's commentary regarding this situation. Mr. Dershowitz' isn't exactly a bastion of Republican ideology or conservative thinking. He is a liberal Democrat, defender of civil liberties, and voted for Hillary, but concludes that the President has the authority to stop an investigation, and he has the authority to fire the FBI Director. Comey needs to go back to trying people like Martha Stewart in private practice no doubt, because he burnt his bridges on both sides of the isle.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 13, 2017 at 7:38 am

Actually Jake, it's Sam who is correct in his comment, above.

And since you didn't link your Dershowitz charge, I went googling for it - couldn't find it, although there were pages and pages of links to his belief that obstruction by the Prez has not been proved (which may be true, but it is, at minimum, another brick in the wall).

Perhaps you would favor us with a source - I've read lots of well-informed contrary opinion, and my sense is that if there was anything to it, there would be outraged "hang-him-high" chatter aplenty.

But there isn't.


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 13, 2017 at 8:23 am

@Jake Waters: "First, Trump should have fired Comey the minute he was President. .... Secondly, his writing of notes doesn't mean anything more than what he felt went down at the time. It is his interpretation typed on an FBI laptop. I wasn't in the room, were you? Thirdly, he committed a crime by leaking through a third party to the press."

(1) Trump would have been wiser if he had fired Comey the minute he became President. But he didn't, did he? Why did he wait until he did? Well, thanks to Trump himself, we all know the answer, don't we? Comey was fired in order to take pressure off of Donald Trump and his administration due to the FBI investigation into Russian ties: "“I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." (Trump's words to Russian officials at the White House the very next day after firing Comey). Right from the horse's mouth.

(2) Sorry, Jake, but contemporaneous notes do carry significant weight in courts. No need to go into a lengthy explanation of why that is so here. You can google the subject yourself.

(3) Comey committed a crime in leaking his notes to the press? What crime? The information in the notes were not classified. (And, BTW, there's more than a bit of irony and hypocrisy in Trump criticizing Comey for leaking unclassified notes to the press while Trump himself leaked CLASSIFIED information to the Russians.). Yes, I know that Breitbart and Newsmax and Fox (your probable sources of information) are probably all claiming that Comey committed a "crime", but that view only holds in very narrow circles. Among other news sites I've seen some essays saying that Comey's leaking may have been improper or inappropriate, but none which say that Comey's action rose to the level of a prosecutable crime. Let's get real: If Comey's act were really a prosecutable crime wouldn't Trump have had his lawyers charge him with a crime by now rather than just wasting a lot of time tweeting insults at him?


 +   11 people like this
Posted by Hotslide, a resident of Oak Tree Acres,
on Jun 13, 2017 at 11:43 am

That is a great piece of research tom. Toddler theory, seagulls, asterisks all over the page. A sure sign of someone being afflicted with the "Trump Wasted Syndrome". Your rants are getting more bitter as this Russian BS fades away. How about doing some deep research regarding the memo Comey (check to see if he had his halo on) brought to Loretta Lynch about her intent to shut down the Hillary investigation. Please get back to us with the critical details.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 13, 2017 at 12:25 pm

@Hotside: :Your rants are getting more bitter as this Russian BS fades away. "

Former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn invoked the 5th to avoid complying with a congressional subpoena from senators investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election. That's right, he chose to invoke his right against self-incrimination.

Nope, no smoke here.

Say, guess who said the following? : ""You see the mob takes the Fifth. If you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?""


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 13, 2017 at 1:53 pm

"Bitter?" Nah, bitter would've been late last year, when I chose instead to take a break from all this fine-spirited camaraderie.

But in your haste to fling organics at the witness, and suggest new topics for me to explore (the floor is yours, but you won't do the work) -- you forgot to include something important.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jun 13, 2017 at 4:32 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

No matter the discourse, America survived Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter.
No doubt, America will survive Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Quail Run Parent, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jun 13, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Quail Run Parent is a registered user.

.....America will survive Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer

Let's see Trump has been elected once. Pelosi and Schumer have been elected and re-elected how many times by the majority?

Hum.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jun 13, 2017 at 6:36 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

No matter the number of elections of Pelosi & Schumer, America will survive.
Nixon & Carter were elected how many times?

I welcome a debate with Quail Run Parent regarding Pelosi and Schumer fitness to serve America. The requirement is, you identify yourself!

Anything short of that, there will be no debate.
if you have an argument that you absolutely believe and support, you most certainly should have no qualms to identify yourself!


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Jake Waters, a resident of Birdland,
on Jun 14, 2017 at 12:35 am

@Tom

Couldn't find Allan Dershowitz's comments? He has only been all over your favorite news shows: CNN and MSNBC. He is not that difficult to find. I refuse to teach you how to use the internet. Secondly, I also wanted to add that Comey knew he was putting Trump out to fry by not ending the mystery and telling the public that he was not under investigation. What a guy that Comey. This scam of a Russian conspiracy is getting rather old by the Democrats too. There hasn't been a shred of evidence. The talking points are always the same: the Russians hacked our election process. But what did they hack and what did they do? They all admit that no votes were changed. Now we find out that a member of the DNC was talking to Wikileaks's. The actual person who interfered with our voting system and democracy was Obama when he went on TV and told the illegals to go ahead and register and vote, because nothing will happen to you. Now that is interference. And we have enough proof and examples of voting fraud by illegals. The Democrats should stop resurrecting McCarthy and screaming about Russians behind every door.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 14, 2017 at 7:34 am

@Jake Waters

Allan Dershowitz is a very independent and idiosyncratic individual. He's not the spokesman for liberal thought that you're trying to make him out to be. There is no one in America who largely agrees with all of Allan Dershowitz's views except for Allan Dershowitz himself. Bet that you don't either. So it's quite amusing to see you cherry-picking and touting some of his views while ignoring or condemning his other views.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 14, 2017 at 7:45 am

So, you couldn't find it either, eh Jake? The best defense is to be personally offensive, is that it?

Dershowitz is no stranger to the spotlight, and he had an interesting civil liberties perspective on the Obstruction issue. But if he actually said what you say he did about Comey's leak to the NYT, 1 - he'd be embarrassed, and 2 - it would have been the headline.

Color me unconvinced.

As to the rest of your post, also unsupported, you're certainly free to believe and express that stuff - and you might consider changing the channel occasionally.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 14, 2017 at 8:08 am

@Jake Waters

As far as the investigation into Russian contacts and influence, have you ever held a security clearance and had to fill out a security investigation questionnaire in which you are to list all foreign contacts as well as financial payments from foreign contacts, especially those from sensitive countries (such as Russia)? How do you explain the failure of former Trump National Securty Advisor Flynn to properly disclose at least $65,000 in payments from Russian firms? How do you justify him lying to Vice President Pence about the extent of his contacts with Russians? How do you justify Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, failing to disclose meetings with Russians on his security investigation forms? How do you justify AG Sessions for not disclosing meetings with Russian officials on his security investigation forms? How do you justify Flynn refusing to testify in front of Congress on the matter of Russian activities by invoking the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination? How do you justify Trump pressuring Comey to drop an FBI investigation into Flynn, a man who lied on his security questionnaire and who Trump himself fired for lying to the Vice President? How do you justify Trump saying to Russian officials at the White House "I faced great pressure because of Russia. That's taken off." the day after Trump fired the FBI director? How do you justify Trump leaking highly classified information to the Russians during that same meeting?

Don't know if there is an impeachable offense here or if there was Russian-Trump collusion during the campaign, but common sense dictates that there be a thorough investigation into what the heck is going on here with so many people having Russian contacts and for some mysterious reason either lying or failing to disclose these contacts. Either (1) there has been some sort of collusion between Russian officials and Trump associates, or (2) there is nothing here but Trump and many of his associates turned a small, minor matter into a big, huge matter by acting like idiots and failing to be completely honest and open about their innocent and harmless contacts with Russian officials and firms. It's either (1) or (2). So you tell us: Are Trump and his associates corrupt or are they idiots?


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jun 14, 2017 at 10:33 am

Scott Hale is a registered user.

Hey Jake: Just curious are you totally happy with Trump and his admin? Are you totally happy with the GOP being in control of congress? They can do no wrong?

Nothing critical, at all?

Well, I guess they will all be re-elected, huh?

if you are GOP you love what is happening; if you are anything but GOP you are not thrilled.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a PleasantonWeekly.com blogger,
on Jun 14, 2017 at 2:52 pm

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

This thread seems to have been restricted in error. It is now reopened to general comments. Kindly try to keep them on-point and not-personal, as the Great Spirit gives you sufficient judgment to exercise such restraint.

If it closes again, we'll know it was either for failure to exercise such restraint, or not-in-error the first time.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 14, 2017 at 5:18 pm

@Jake Waters: "...I also wanted to add that Comey knew he was putting Trump out to fry by not ending the mystery and telling the public that he was not under investigation."

This just in: Headline on CNN "TRUMP UNDER INVESTIGATION". Yes, that's right. Donald Trump is now officially under investigation for Obstruction of Justice by Justice Department Special Counsel Robert Mueller.

Happy now? Well, this administration is getting off to a smooth start, isn't it? And it's only about 1/10 the way through the 4-year term. If you think it can't get any worse, then you underestimate the ability of Donald Trump to shoot himself in the foot again and again and again .......

CNN: Web Link

........


 +   10 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jun 14, 2017 at 7:12 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

Obviously, the democratic party leadership beginning with Pelosi, Schumer, have a profound responsibility to tone down the rhetoric. They have allowed their following to continue with their hatred of the republican election results.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 7:25 am

Michael: hate speech in any direction is a very bad thing.

It is crucial to separate deep disagreement on the merits of most issues from demonizing the individuals who hold contrary beliefs on those issues. Dehumanizing the enemy is a destructive phenomenon that can be used to rationalize incomprehensibly terrible, inhumane acts.

I hope that posters will be mindful of the distinction, as I will be.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 9:09 am

Tom: I appreciate your last comment and hope you keep your promise. In my humble opinion, your personal attacks on Trump, not his policies, have been worse than the personal attacks by Republicans on your blog against Obama. Your constant referral to the color Trump's orange skin color, and other similar personal attacks, have dehumanize him to some of your readers, which as we have seen at the DC shooting of Republican politicians. can dangerously provoke unstable people towards violence. Make your arguments against his economic, domestic, and foreign policies, but enough with personal attacks on his skin color, hair, and other similar issues. Although I completely disagree with Bernie Sanders on literally all his policies, unlike Hillary, I respect him for keeping the focus on policies and not personal attacks, and appreciate his condemnation of the Democratic gunman. You may also find that by keeping personal attacks out of your opinions, you are more likely to persuade independent readers of the validity of your positions. Great example is how Tip Oneil and President Reagan could disagree on policies but avoid personal attacks, reach compromises, and enjoy a pint of Guiness together.


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 9:52 am

@American: "Your constant referral to the color Trump's orange skin color, and other similar personal attacks, have dehumanize him to some of your readers,...."

Joking about "Orange skin"? That's nothing compared to the personal attacks that Trump has delivered against countless people. But you overlook or excuse Donald Trump's personal attacks on others, don't you? Not even one word in your long post acknowledging the giant elephant in the room: The simple, undeniable fact that Donald Trump constantly, relentlessly, reflexively, and almost daily issues personal attacks against others. If you were as concerned about "personal attacks" as you profess to be, then your #1 target for criticism would be Donald Trump. You're nothing but a hypocrite.

Hypocrite (adj): a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.


 +   9 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 10:00 am

American: Matthew 7: 3-5. Web Link

Sanctimony often comes with a gargantuan blind spot. Your personal labeling, 'othering' and falsely characterizing "liberals" over these several years has been epidemic.

Stay in your yard, counselor - there's plenty of work for you there.


 +   8 people like this
Posted by American, a resident of Danville,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 10:34 am

Sam: Trump's personal attacks on others are inexcusable, and I certainly do not defend them. I was Marco Rubio supporter in primary and Trump's personal attacks on " Little Marco" and other personal attacks on John McCain, a true war hero, sickened me. But on policies, supporting law enforcement, increasing military capabilities, reducing taxes and regulations, enforcing immigration laws, it was a no brainer for my support of his policies over Hillary's policies. You don't know me, and labeling me a "hypocrite" is a personal attack, exactly what I hoped you and Ton would try to stop. I would still sit down & enjoy a Guiness with you, if the personal attacks stopped.

As to Tom, the term " Liberal", or term " conservative" that you constantly use is not a " personal" attack, but a description of political ideology. It is not meant as a personal attack, but apparently you think it as offensive as you ripping Trump's skin color or hair. I disagree, but as a Christian, if it offends you, I apologize. Your response for me to " stay in my yard" makes it clear how you feel about constructive critism and message received. Your blog, your rules, and don't ever see me enjoying a Guiness with you.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 12:58 pm

@American: "Trump's personal attacks on others are inexcusable, and I certainly do not defend them."

You may not have outright defended Trump's many personal attacks but by not even acknowledging their existence in your one-sided post on "personal attacks", you showed evidence of bias and double-standards. Like I said, in your post on "personal attacks" there was a giant elephant in the room and yet you said nothing about it. Not even one word. How could that giant elephant possibly escape your notice?


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Doug Miller, a resident of Country Fair,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 1:32 pm

Doug Miller is a registered user.

To those of us on the right, lets be thankful that Mr. Cushing is back at the helm doing what he does so well. Last fall when Harry Reid and Mr. Cushing both fled the scene, it was depressing. Now that Mr. Cushing is back, lets encourage him to stay the course. We need him to continue.


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a PleasantonWeekly.com blogger,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 2:47 pm

Tom Cushing is a registered user.

Do you see, Am, what Mr. Miller did there? He practices the art of the slam, with humor and gentle sarcasm - not all pedantic and holier-than-thou. Why, it's enough to drive me back to penning dog stories.

Come to think of it, though, ol' Doug flew this coop even before Harry and I went on sabbatical. Coincidence? Perhaps HE's the man behind the curtain, Toto.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Steve Jacobs, a resident of Pleasanton Valley,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 3:19 pm

Dear Tom,

To be bucketed with Harry Reid is anything but gentle. In fact it is defamation in it's most severe form

Kind regards,
Steve J


 +   7 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 3:43 pm

Jeez Steve, here we were, having a nice bi-partisan moment ...

When reading the PW and the D/SR Boards, it Is sometimes important to recall that there are 811,000 Dems registered in our two counties, and 238,000 GOPers (most of whom seem to comment here). Put another way, since I started writing these epistles in 2011, CA Dem registration has held steady at 44%, whereas GOP registration has dropped from 31% to 26%.

I don't think Harry had much to do with that, so maybe it was me. Regardless, you're a feisty little band of brothers.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm

Scott Hale is a registered user.

Oh, I'm confused. On this blog you are either a liberal or conservative or you are on the left or right?

There is no middle ground? No moderate? Nobody with IQ higher than a liberal or conservative?

Hum


 +   2 people like this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 5:41 pm

The simple fact is that Donald Trump's worst enemy is Donald Trump. How can anyone not be stunned (and even amused) by Donald Trump's ineptness at constantly shooting himself in the foot? He didn't have to boast to the Russian officials the day after he fired Comey that Comey was a "nut job" or that firing him resulted in pressure being "taken off" of him. Would have been far wiser for Trump to have simply kept quiet. Or how about Trump taunting Comey and teasing Comey with the possibility that he might have recordings of their conversations? Was that a smart move? Regardless of whether or not such recordings exist, it was a stupid thing to do. We've seen the same act again and again by Trump: Trump has the opportunity to keep quiet and try to let things blow over, but instead of showing self-control and self-discipline Trump has to blurt out a stupid ill-advised statement or tweet which gets himself into more hot water.

Sooner or later even the most fervent Trump supporter here is going to have to admit the simple truth: Donald Trump's worst enemy is Donald Trump.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

This morning the United States flag was flying upside down at the United States Post office on Black Avenue in Pleasanton. A clear message of distress.


 +   2 people like this
Posted by SAM, a resident of Downtown,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 7:41 pm

It amuses me reading this string on how hard it is to enlighten the supporters of President Donald J. Trump on how profoundly flawed this man is. At first I thought, have they no moral fortitude or love for this country? Come on, if this man were a member of your family would you think his virtues where to be aspired to? I mean how many of us who have a guy like this in our immediate circles really like this kind of person? I can understand if you think the country needs to take a new direction, but is this best messenger we have? Can we agree that Trump is not our best advocate of the American way and that we can do better? If not I don't think any amount of constructive reasoning can penetrate the mindset of the devotees that continue to go along with behavior of the accused (Trump).


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Scott hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 7:41 pm

Scott hale is a registered user.

. A clear message of distress.

Or user error. Regardless, kinda off topic here, no? splat


 +   3 people like this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jun 15, 2017 at 8:06 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

An upside down American flag signals dire distress of extreme danger to life or property. People in Pleasanton this morning called the police.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 16, 2017 at 12:18 am

@Michael Austin :"An upside down American flag signals dire distress of extreme danger to life or property."

.....or that someone made a mistake attaching the flag to the flagpole.


East Bay Times: Web Link


........


 +   5 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 16, 2017 at 7:12 am

Meanwhile, it's getting mighty crowded under the Presidential bus - Mr. Rosenstein? Step right up:

"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt
6:07 AM - 16 Jun 2017."

Rosenstein's reputation was spotless, until quite recently. I wonder if he's keeping notes.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jun 16, 2017 at 7:14 am

Scott Hale is a registered user.

Love it when I'm right. Perhaps 200 years ago it was a 'communication' but since we don't use the telegraph anymore, safe to say it is no longer used quite the way a few freaked out about.

And still topic drift.


 +   4 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of Alamo,
on Jun 16, 2017 at 9:32 am

Hi Scott: wrt 'drift': it happens. I'm sure I contribute a direct share, and in the unenviable position of moderating the threads, I prefer to use a light touch on message content. In an arena as controversial as modern national politics, to do otherwise would lead to charges of censorship. No one has been banned by me for the substance of his/her message.

I have banned a very few for misuse of the comments feature over these 6-or-so years, most notably one individual whose posts reflected an abiding need for personal attention. I tried to let him back in under one of his several screen names to see if he could conform his behavior, but he never could. He'll need to pursue his hobby/therapy elsewhere.

So, the RC will never be a directed seminar, especially as the comments on each thread increase in number. Please feel free to email me your suggestions.


 +  Like this comment
Posted by Scott Hale, a resident of San Ramon,
on Jun 16, 2017 at 10:13 am

Scott Hale is a registered user.

Hello Tom: Well, I believe my sarcasm flew over a certain person's head..big time.
I should have been more clear: this area doesn't serve to alert anybody of doom, disaster, or call for help (that went out 200 years ago). And I as I put forward it was USER ERROR as it always tends to be. Ooops, the IT side of my head speaking. Bad me.


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Hotslide, a resident of Oak Tree Acres,
on Jun 16, 2017 at 10:56 am

I'm not quite sure why a blog writer can ban anyone from commenting on a blog unless some filthy words are displayed. The legacy media can do everything but physical violence and it skates. It is quite evident Tom has a special relationship with the PW so maybe it is something they grant. Tom does note his comments have a liberal bent (only 100% of the time). And I don't believe someone with a conservative ideology would be allowed the same privilege to blog here. I have only checked in for a year or so but have not seen a conservative blogger, and anyone with a different view than Tom is flogged by a reverent bunch of supporters. I'm certainly not lost on the fact that the PW has a distinctive liberal bent, not unusual for papers today. So why not let Tom have a permanent editorial slot in the paper?


 +   6 people like this
Posted by Tom Cushing, a resident of another community,
on Jun 16, 2017 at 11:49 am

Hots: you might check out the Tim Talk blog, which often focuses a conservative eye on the news. Brother Tim and I occasionally get into it on some topic or other, and hooray for that.

As to a consistent conservative counterpoint to my stuff, here's a link to express interest in blogging for Embarcadero: Web Link . I'm unaware of any further process, but that's a start. And, of course, you commentators are not bashful.

Left/right slants generally seem to be in the eye of the beholder. BTW, I have not ever been edited here - asked to cover a particular topic, take a particular tack, or even had my prose reviewed, so don't blame the regular staff by implication.

As to who does the modding, historically my hand has been lighter than other PW moderators on the behavior front. As to the scope, it's not only readers' sensibilities about 'Carlin words' but also whether they'll be driven away by nonsense. Apparently that's my call, as a convenience as much as for any other reason. Since it doesn't go to substance, I'm not sure why it's much of an issue.

Permanence has neither been offered, nor sought, so maybe there's hope for you Northpaws. It's just such a topic-rich environment these days that it's hard to think about stopping.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Sam, a resident of Oak Hill,
on Jun 16, 2017 at 1:18 pm

A lot of Trump supporters like to point out that Donald Trump is a successful "businessman". But I think that a lot of them miss out on recognizing just what kind of businessman he is. He is not a tech visionary like Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg who blazed out new business frontiers. He is real estate developer who was given a great start in life by his wealthy father and his particular specialty is "Marketing". Donald Trump is a 'Marketer' a guy who excels at promoting and selling things. Marketing: The Art of making things seem better and more attractive than they really are in order promote sales. Not the Art of actually delivering on promises - that's the responsibility of the people in product development or engineering or some other department.

When you start to understand that above all else Donald Trump is first and foremost a Marketer, a lot of other things start to make sense. No, Donald Trump is not going to build a big wall that is paid for by Mexico: That was MARKETING. No, Donald Trump is not going to get the US GDP's annual rate of increase above 5%. That was MARKETING, too! All the big talk about what Donald Trump is going to do and how smart he is and how he can accomplish things that no one else in the world can do? Marketing, Marketing, Marketing. Don't fool yourself into thinking that because the guy in the White House is an outstanding Marketer that he knows how to actually accomplish the things that he's talking about. As a Marketer, that's not his job or area of expertise.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Michael Austin, a resident of Pleasanton Meadows,
on Jun 23, 2017 at 8:15 pm

Michael Austin is a registered user.

With the Phil Montag, a democratic party official, from Nebraska, spewing his venomous ideology, caught on video, and broadcast everywhere, indicates democratic party is in desperate need for exorcists.


 +   1 person likes this
Posted by Cholo, a resident of Livermore,
on Jun 24, 2017 at 10:51 am

"I'm glad he got shot."

WOW...very spooky!

Web Link


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Battle over downtown Livermore plan heats up
By Tim Hunt | 5 comments | 1,320 views

Couples: Sex and Connection (Chicken or Egg?)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 931 views