Impeach Trump?

[josie_L]

I have heard you.

It is Brooks who wrote the article, not me; it is his opinion, not mine. I think that you miss the point that he is making; you pivot to a favorite narrative, and attack him and his publisher.

I had hoped for a serious discussion on this column. Trump supporters might get some into why some see him as a great danger to our nation. And stop their strange obsession with the idea that this is about not accepting or understanding the election.

Your passive aggressive style leaves much to be desired.

You speak unjustly of a decent and wise man. Evidently, that is what Trump has brought out in you.

 

[Faithdancer]

And Maxine Waters has already publicly stated that impeaching Pence is next - not that he’s actually done anything at all yet.

There there Maxine, time for your psych meds now.

 

[Faithdancer]

And for you Clinton voters, keep pretending you are standing on higher moral ground, nothing bespeaks Christian values more than self-righteousness.

And with that I bid you adieu.

But she’s qualified to preach in the UMC, so…

 

[7_Sorrows]

Really, so people who voted for Trump are foregoing moral values, whereas people who voted for Clinton are upholding moral values, because I see no indictment of Hillary’s character, or of people who chose to vote for her, but why shouldn’t I be surprised, this is the NYT, the very same news outlet that was pro-Hillary Clinton (and still is)/anti-Trump.

So, excuse me, if I do not agree with this premise, because as I said earlier people voted for Trump based on issues not on his less than sterling character.

It is David Brooks who is clueless and shows a complete lack of disregard for those who did vote Trump, i.e., it was not a rejection of moral values, such as caritas or goodness, it was a willingness to stand up for life, rule of law, providing for their families . . .etc.

And no, this is not hypothesizing, people who voted for Trump did so based on issues such as economics, Obamacare, immigration:

wsj.com/articles/how-trump-won-in-two-dimensions-1502320256

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/18/trump_won_on_the_issues_132383.html

well said Josie!

 

[7_Sorrows]

Dvdjs, I am flabbergasted by your arrogance, you asked for my answer but are not willing to hear me out, because you are more interested in your own opinions than you are mine.

I did not have to read the article, but I did so out of respect, but now consider this conversation over and done with, YOU DON’T LIKE MY RESPONSE AND I DON’T LIKE YOURS.

+1. It gets frustrating doesn’t it?

 

[Theo520]

I’m curious why you thought this piece was so significant?

He never actually talks about the Trump transcripts but he is accurate in describing the media class as being Trump obsessed.

Permanent damage to our global alliances? That was unsupported and frankly a ridiculous statement.

A tirade on the withering of mainline Protestantism over decades? Again unsupported, and how is that relevant.

It’s quite tiring to see the media elite keep feigning indignation at how Trump speaks.

In summary, he really didn’t support any of his positions, he was writing to the typical NYT reader who already agree with him that Trump is evil. An empty piece, much like Al Gore’s latest movie.

Please, you have no capacity whatsoever to speak for my “hopes”.

Here, however, is something for you, from David Brooks. A piece that does resonate with me on the why I view that Trump presidency as likely disastrous for America. Not the Trump obsession/addiction part, which presumes that people are just engaged in the spectacle, rather than watching with a serious concern about the

nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/getting-trump-out-of-my-brain.html?_r=0

It is very disturbing to me that too many good Catholics here can see no further than the problems "secular progressivism that is spiritually formed by feminism, environmentalism and the quest for individual rights " and do not see what is so terribly wrong with the ostensible cure that they have adopted supported by “realist nationalism that gets its manners from reality TV and its spiritual succor from in-group/out-group solidarity” caritas-free evangelicals.

It is that barren lack of caritas that makes cure is far worse than the disease.

 

[EasterJoy]

Actually, my revised post to his response, i.e., not the initial response I gave, does take into consideration Hillary Clinton’s character

I don’t think she would have been much more palatable if her character were different. I think it is actually the other way around. If it weren’t for the annoying way she acts as if she knows what is best for everyone else, I think she would not be judged as harshly.

I don’t think it has anything to do with her being a woman, either. I really think her biggest handicap was her peevish-school-administrator brand of secular sanctimony. She came off as that principal who put on a fake smile that all the parents can see right through and is always pushing some hare-brained “new education” scheme without any buy-in from the students, parents or teachers, as if the only thing keeping the school from being tremendous is everyone getting in line and believing her way is best.

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

I’m not going to get into a semantic war with you, but suffice it to say, that people do not redact pages and pages of information of DOJ files that were requested, without wanting to hide something.

p.s. The investigation has to start somewhere, so give it time to grow.

FOIA requests are often redacted. It says so on the US gov website FAQ page regarding FOIA.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So, lose an election and continue the fight:

comments: americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/russian_collusion_in_democrat_inner_circle_comments.html#disqus_thread

And Paul Kengor etc:

americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/russian_collusion_in_democrat_inner_circle.html

 

[stinkcat_14]

So, lose an election and continue the fight:

americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/russian_collusion_in_democrat_inner_circle_comments.html#disqus_thread

Why not, that is what the republicans did with Obama, why would we demand that democrats act any differently?

Of course, not everyone who is critical of Trump is a democrat.

 

[dvdjs]

Your passive aggressive style leaves much to be desired.

I try to make my point without attacking others, personally. I will doubt fats and critique analysis. But I try to avoid taking shots others’ characters.

Do you think overt aggression is better?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Why not, that is what the republicans did with Obama, why would we demand that democrats act any differently?

Of course, not everyone who is critical of Trump is a democrat.

Did you even read the article?
The Republicans reacted nothing even close to what we are witnessing by the Dems the past several months.

 

[josie_L]

FOIA requests are often redacted. It says so on the US gov website FAQ page regarding FOIA.

Yes, all the “juicy bits” were redacted, as in the talking points between the DOJ and the FBI, as to what they should say about the Tarmac meeting, i.e., they were spinning a narrative for what was an obvious attempt to downplay a meeting that should never have taken place.

But it’s okay, the ACLJ will get a federal court order for the redacted information.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m curious why you thought this piece was so significant?

I saw this a good article to respond to a direct request from 7 sorrows.

I think that the article offers an opportunity to the Trump die-hards, if they were to reflect on it, to gain some insight into the thinking of some of the strong Trump opponents - thinking that is repeatedly mis-characterized as not getting over the election, or even hoping to remove Trump whence Hillary will replace him.

Brooks sees a significance to Trump’s election that goes far beyond a mere collection of policy positions - which for the most part Brooks would agree with. Some opposition to Trump is more along the lines of what he signifies, rather than what his political ideas are. The looming question is: what will be the lasting effects of having a man of his character as president. That is what Brooks is touching on in the sign-off piece.

He is a serious, although, naturall,y imperfect, writer, not a partisan political hack. He words although brief - He is not writing a policy paper or extended critical analysis of Trump policy here - deserve some reflection.

PS I wonder if you, who proclaims FACTS MATTER, will ever document your often repeated claim of a 70% reduction in illegal immigration?

 

[josie_L]

What intellectuals/lawyers/journalists have to say about Brooks:

Brooks’ writing on sociology has been criticized for being based on stereotypes and presenting false claims as factual.[65][66] In 2004, Sasha Issenberg, writing for Philadelphia magazine, fact-checked Bobos in Paradise, concluding that many of its comments about middle America were misleading or the exact reverse of the truth.[67] He reported Brooks as insisting that the book was not intended to be factual but to report his impressions of what he believed an area to be like: “He laughed…’[The book was] partially tongue-in-cheek’…I went through some of the other instances where he made declarations that appeared insupportable. He accused me of being ‘too pedantic,’ of “taking all of this too literally,’ of ‘taking a joke and distorting it.’ ‘That’s totally unethical’, he said”. Brooks later said the article made him feel that "I suck…I can’t remember what I said but my mother told me I was extremely stupid.”[9] In 2015, Salon found that Brooks had got ‘nearly every detail’ wrong about a poll of high-school students.[68]

Michael Kinsley argued that Brooks was guilty of “fearless generalizing… Brooks does not let the sociology get in the way of the shtick, and he wields a mean shoehorn when he needs the theory to fit the joke”.[69] Writing for Gawker, which has consistently criticized Brooks’ work, opinion writer Tom Scocca argued that Brooks does not use facts and statistics to support his policy positions, noting “Possibly that is because he perceives facts and statistics as an opportunity for dishonest people to work mischief”.[70] Furthermore, Annie Lowrey, in writing for the New York Magazine, criticized Brooks’ statistical methods when arguing his stance on political reform, claiming he used “some very tricksy, misleading math”.[71]

Additionally, Sean Illing of Slate criticized the same article from Brooks, claiming Brooks argued his point by framing his sources’ arguments out of context and routinely making bold “half-right” assumptions regarding the controversial issue of poverty reform.[72]

In 2016, James Taranto criticized[73] Brooks’ analysis[74] of a U.S. Supreme Court case,[75] writing that “Brooks’s treatment of this case is either deliberately deceptive or recklessly ignorant”.[73] Law professor Ann Althouse concurred that Brooks “distorts rather grotesquely” the case in question.[76] Brooks was previously criticized by Lyle Denniston with regard to another case, for having “scrambled the actual significance of what the Supreme Court has done”.[77]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brooks_(cultural_commentator

Hmmm, generalizations/stereotypes, you say, naaaaaahhh, he doesn’t do that.

 

[dvdjs]

What intellectuals/lawyers/journalists have to say about Brooks

Isn’t the internet wonderful? One can always find something or other and post it as though it is probative of something or other.

But as to the Wiki piece:

I think that you mean" " What a couple of … "

He is not perfect, as I already noted, but he is substantially accomplished. He writes in a serious manner, which attracts criticism from pundits who are shills. He academic critics found him lacking in academic rigor, which he never pretended, but the community recognized his reporting:

asanet.org/news-and-events/member-awards/excellence-reporting-social-issues-asa-award/david-brooks-award-statement

 

[ProdigalSun]

My guess is that the praying habits of Obama voters are no different than the praying habits of Trump voters. On these forums, however, I would never suggest that Obama supporters are any less spiritually active than Trump supporters.

I agree with you 100%. My point being that most people don’t pray. I was not referring to only people on this forum as you very well know.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Two words: North Korea.

And will you please stop calling those who disagree with Pres. Trump, or think he is incompetent “haters”? It reduces the level of discourse to an infantile level, and name-calling is never Christian.

I don’t “hate” him just because I think he shouldn’t be president.

No you hate him because he is president and you want him gone no matter how it is done!

 

[7_Sorrows]

I don’t think she would have been much more palatable if her character were different. I think it is actually the other way around. If it weren’t for the annoying way she acts as if she knows what is best for everyone else, I think she would not be judged as harshly.

I don’t think it has anything to do with her being a woman, either. I really think her biggest handicap was her peevish-school-administrator brand of secular sanctimony. She came off as that principal who put on a fake smile that all the parents can see right through and is always pushing some hare-brained “new education” scheme without any buy-in from the students, parents or teachers, as if the only thing keeping the school from being tremendous is everyone getting in line and believing her way is best.

great analogy!

 

[ProdigalSun]

It’s gossip. Lots of books to be sold. Lots of WND, NewsMax and Amazon affiliate links to buy more gossip and more garbage about Hillary. Lots of 10-point font posts from said books and fake news stories.

There’s no “there” there. Move on.

I’m amazed how Hillary supporters will follow and support her Blindly no matter what comes up. We will see where these investigations lead and what they uncover. Hopefully your eyes and heart will be opened to here deceit and corruption!