Comment Of The Day (2): “Five Reasons Why This Was President Trump’s Dumbest Tweet Yet”

It would be unfair to characterize fattymoon’s comment, which was, like the previous COTD, supposed to be posted almost a week ago, as an example of the phenomenon just discussed. Fatty, a smart, disillusioned Occupy veteran, is bipartisan opponent of the status quo, and a revolutionary with integrity: he does not embrace the double standards that render the “resistance” ridiculous, taking such self-disqualifying positions as  Maxine Waters’ classic that while President Hillary Clinton could have fired FBI chief Comey without wrongdoing, it was an obstruction of justice for President Trump to do so. I chose his comment for reposting because it is a virtual archive of the faulty reasoning and rationalizations that sustain the anti-Trump barrage. I will elaborate on that after you read fattymoon’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Five Reasons Why This Was President Trump’s Dumbest Tweet Yet”:

Some of your quotes followed by my thoughts…

“None of it justifies the fake news” – Which entity pours on the most fake news, the media or the White House? Open to argument, yes?

“concocted Russian conspiracy theories” – You’re jumping the gun, sir. The jury is out.

“I stand behind the office.” – I refuse to accept the man behind the office. If left unchecked, Trump will bring down the office after inalterably defacing it.

“I made it clear that Trump had neither the Character, nor the skills or knowledge, to hold it, just as I made it clear that Hillary Clinton was also an unfit candidate because of her thorough corruption.” – Are you saying that Trump is not thoroughly corrupt? Just a little corrupt?

“This is Andrew Johnson all over again.” – Rightfully so, imo. (“Johnson is regarded by many historians as one of the worst presidents in American history.” – Wikipedia)

“I have minimal influence, but I will do my best to protect the Office and institution of the Presidency from those who would destroy it, no matter who occupies that office.” – And I will do my best to protect the Office and institution of the Presidency from those who would destroy it, i.e. Donald Trump.

I’m back.

Fatty likes to post quotes from previous posts here in which I specified the reasons why, in sequence, Trump should not be permitted to seek the Republican nomination, Trump should not receive any votes from intelligent and responsible primary voters, the Republican Party was obligated not to nominate him even after he has won the requisite number of delegates, why nobody in their right mind should vote for him, and why electing him President would be a multilateral catastrophe. For some reason, fatty seems to think that my post-election insistence that Donald Trump, by being elected, is owed exactly the same chance to succeed, the same level of citizen respect, the same objective and fair news media coverage and the same institutional support that every previous elected President has received and benefited from is inconsistent with those positions. They are not. The democratic process designed by the Founder lawfully chose Donald Trump as President. My fellow citizens decided that despite his undeniable flaws of character and preparation, he was the choice to lead our nation, and from that moment on, my–our— duty is to accept that result, and to do what we can to help him succeed.

Let me diagnose fatty’s points:

“None of it justifies the fake news” – Which entity pours on the most fake news, the media or the White House? Open to argument, yes?

It’s not a competition, and these are not equivalent. Journalists’ job and mission is to inform the public, accurately and objectively, including showing when elected officials misrepresent facts. Accurately reporting the news is not the primary mission or even a mission at all of leaders and elected officials. One whole profession has decided to eschew the duties of competence, honesty, integrity and trustworthiness, rendering it useless even as critics, and justifying a President who needs to be objectively and fairly reported on in pronouncing that profession as biased and unreliable. Nice job!

“concocted Russian conspiracy theories” – You’re jumping the gun, sir. The jury is out.

On the evidence, no such case would ever see a jury. No conspiracy theory is ever disproved since it is impossible to prove a negative. That’s why conspiracy theories  are so useful and vicious political weapons….and that is exactly what the Trump-Russia slur is and was designed to be.

“I stand behind the office.” – I refuse to accept the man behind the office. If left unchecked, Trump will bring down the office after unalterably defacing it.

You reject democracy, then, because citizens are bound to accept elected leaders. The  accusation in the last sentence can be used, and has been used, against every elected leader, and it is always unethical and damaging to the nation.

“I made it clear that Trump had neither the Character, nor the skills or knowledge, to hold it, just as I made it clear that Hillary Clinton was also an unfit candidate because of her thorough corruption.”  Are you saying that Trump is not thoroughly corrupt? Just a little corrupt?

Irrelevant. I know how corrupt the Clintons are; I can only speculate on Trump. Progressives assume he is corrupt because their bigotry holds that anyone successful and wealthy is corrupt. I assume he’s likely to be corrupt because the three fields he has succeeded in—real estate, construction and casinos—are traditionally corrupt. Nonetheless, as I keep writing and explaining, Trump’s fitness for the Presidency is no longer the issue. Voters said he was fit enough for them. Now he must be judged on what he accomplishes, not what he is.

“This is Andrew Johnson all over again.” – Rightfully so, imo. (“Johnson is regarded by many historians as one of the worst presidents in American history.” – Wikipedia)

Smoking gun response. We don’t impeach Presidents for being “bad” or unpopular. That’s not the system, but it is the suicidal one the the Left seems to be pushing for. The last time, it was the Republicsn that wanted to warp the Constitution to remove a President for being unpopular, crude and not supportive of their agenda.

“I have minimal influence, but I will do my best to protect the Office and institution of the Presidency from those who would destroy it, no matter who occupies that office.” – And I will do my best to protect the Office and institution of the Presidency from those who would destroy it, i.e. Donald Trump.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, that Trump has done or proposed doing poses any threat to the office or institution, or the Constitution at all. The scheme of the left to drive him out of office using a weaponized new media and propaganda threatens them all.

6 Comments

Filed under Character, Citizenship, Comment of the Day, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Government & Politics, History, Journalism & Media

6 responses to “Comment Of The Day (2): “Five Reasons Why This Was President Trump’s Dumbest Tweet Yet”

  1. I agree with Jack 100 percent! Trump is not anyone’s idea of a great man, but he is the President. If the past 100+ days are any indication for the rest his term he’ll make me angry every day. So did Obama. So did Bush. So what?

  2. fattymoon

    Fatty say this maybe for sure maybe… any PR good PR. Fatty thank Jack make trash pile Super Sundae Fatty on top!

    Fatty thankee Jack back angsty poem + disturbing selfie maybe say more than poem, yes?

    BONUS! Leaked May 16 White House Press Briefing audio exclusive hahahaha!

  3. I think the sign in the photo above says it all;

    “You cannot unify with hate!”

    People in the anti-Trump resistance are too irrational to see their own flagrant hypocrisy. There are way too many people suffering from Traumatic Political Stress Disorder.

    As for fattymoon’s comments; the Julie Principle should be applied, you may not agree with his every comment but, like many others here, he does add a unique, although sometimes wildly illogical, perspective. 😉

  4. Mark

    Just to nitpick here….

    ” No conspiracy theory is ever disproved since it is impossible to prove a negative”

    This is not entirely true… while not a conspiracy theory, the Michelson-Morely experiment proved that the ether does not exist, for example. It is only impossible to prove a negative when you do not have sufficient criteria to establish such disproof.

    When you have an accepted definition of something that is only alleged to be true, you can disprove it by finding anything that is physically measurable or otherwise provably true which would simply contradict the requirements of that definition. For example, saying that a meter is shorter than a yard can be shown to be false by taking the definition one inch which is 2.54 cm, and multiplying it by 36, which is the number of inches in a yard, and seeing that the product is less than the number of cm in a meter.

    The reason you cannot disprove most conspiracy theories is not because it is impossible to prove a negative as much as it is impossible to disprove something that is not falsifiable, which most conspiracy theory claims are.

    Of course, even if a conspiracy theory is falsifiable, a disproof of it does not mean that people who believed it will accept the evidence of its disproof. That is not on account of any lack of evidence, or because you cannot prove a negative, but represents a failure in such people to accept what may be scientifically proven (there are still people that believe the ether exists, for instance).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s