Amazing 'how hostile the press is to everything the president does'

Not that much of a surprise, really

When I think of the former President, I think of a lot of times I disagreed with him, but also of a few times when I agreed.  If it's 100% disagreement, one has to suspect that what's afoot is not just disagreement, but opposition for the sake of opposition.  I could never go there with Obama or even Clinton simply because I value my country enough to cheer when something happens that's right, and to desire that what's right will occur.

It appears that this strong opposition is in the bureaucracy as well, evidenced especially by the apparent revelation that General Flynn called the Russian ambassador.  As Flynn was not in his position at the time, this information could have only been uncovered by a wiretap or the NSA, and the justification for such a tap has not been released.  Ordinarily such surveillance can get a person fired or put in jail if it's not warranted, so we're talking some very serious opposition on the part of someone in the bureaucracy or in the previous administration.

(and interestingly, it was a Congressman, and not a reporter, who put two and two together here....this is another big place where journalists have simply dropped the ball)

Not the American way

I bet he wasn't saying that about Obama. The truth is that our system of government depends on criticism of policies and decisions by those in high office. When the GOP offers an extremely low quality candidate, so that we have an election between him and a crook...  Why should any of this be surprising? What did Chaput (et al.) expect?

I find it interesting that

I find it interesting that the very same people who lambasted Obama on a daily basis are now preaching sermons that we need to respect Trump.

Even more interesting is how Trump seems to be annoyed that he is not respected by a huge swath of America. I have noticed he sends his lying drones (Spicer and Conway) out to whine that he is not respected enough, and inexplicably, that now he is President, he should be treated differently by the press than when he was running.

Yes, but.

No question, in my mind, that Trump needs close scrutiny and a healthy dose of criticism.  Still, it's maddening to see the mainstream press, who couldn't seem to find anything to criticize about Obama, now being unable to find anything but criticism for Trump.  I think Trump is right to call them on it, but I sure wish he would find a softer manner.

G. N. Barkman

King

I'm glad we have a real Ruler who is coming back, who doesn't need National Security Advisors, Press Secretaries, an Executive Cabinet or a Twitter account. He isn't dishonest or morally suspect. He will command obedience and crush all enemies. He will rule in righteousness. It's times like these when you are glad to have heavenly citizenship.  

TylerR is a former Pastor. He lives with his family in Olympia, WA. He blogs here.

Are they?

GregH wrote:

I find it interesting that the very same people who lambasted Obama on a daily basis are now preaching sermons that we need to respect Trump.

Even more interesting is how Trump seems to be annoyed that he is not respected by a huge swath of America. I have noticed he sends his lying drones (Spicer and Conway) out to whine that he is not respected enough, and inexplicably, that now he is President, he should be treated differently by the press than when he was running.

Greg, maybe you've got some examples of people who have done what you claim in your first sentence there?  Evidence of daily, or near daily statements in opposition of Obama, followed by whole sermons saying we need to respect Trump?  I would dare suggest that a pastor who attempted the first half of this would have alienated non-Republicans from his church to the point where it would be needless for him to say "we need to support Trump" at all, let alone occupy a whole sermon with it.  You might get a series of public statements castigating Obama followed by a public statement supporting Trump, but not a sermon.  And "daily" is pushing credibility as well.

I think you need to admit that statement was hyperbole--yes, we're a fractured society, but no need to exaggerate it for rhetoric's sake.

And funny, I've been saying about the same thing you said in that second paragraph for the past eight years, just with the names "Obama", "Pfeiffer", and "Palmieri" substituted for "Trump", "Spicer", and "Conway."  Along those lines, we need to be careful of the "FactCheck" articles claiming such and such is a lie, as all too often, what goes on is that the "FactCheck" people change the terms of the question, redefine it, or use a single point of reference to "refute" the claim when any good journalist (or reasonably aware non-journalist) knows that there are multiple points of reference that speak to the claim.

Not that I would claim that Trump has always been honest--he has, like his predecessors, said some doozies--but if you don't catch on that the fact-checkers are pulling some strings in a pretty clear pattern, you're just not thinking.

It's just so amusing to me

It's just so amusing to me the mainstream media's new commitment to the pursuit of absolute truth and hard facts. Just this morning on CNN New Day, Chris Cuomo interrupted Republican Rep. Jim Collins (who absolutely was dancing around Cuomo's question), and said, "Please, Rep. Collins, on this Valentine's Day, for the love of TRUTH...", trying to press him into responding.

I would like to ask Cuomo, "Do you believe in absolute truth? What is truth, to you? How do you define it? How do you determine it? Why does it seem that so many in the media were not nearly so interested in pursuing truth for truth's sake under the previous administration?"

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

And yes, we Christians should

And yes, we Christians should be as committed to the pursuit of truth under the Trump administration as we were under the Obama administration. Pres. Trump is not one to let truth and the facts get in the way of his opinions and decisions.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

GregH wrote:

GregH wrote:

I find it interesting that the very same people who lambasted Obama on a daily basis are now preaching sermons that we need to respect Trump.

Even more interesting is how Trump seems to be annoyed that he is not respected by a huge swath of America. I have noticed he sends his lying drones (Spicer and Conway) out to whine that he is not respected enough, and inexplicably, that now he is President, he should be treated differently by the press than when he was running.

I agree.  He needs to stop focusing on the media.  I am not sure what his obsession is with the ratings.  The only thing I can gather is that the White House has become much more like "The Apprentice" than an actual working government.  Therefore he is focused on the ratings.  The political system is a bit of a disaster now, and I find the whole situation quite humorous.  I am 100% fine with it continuing as it is.  The more they are consumed by a bunch of nonsense, the more they are staying out of my business.  Now if they could just give me back some of my tax money, I would really be happy.

Bert Perry wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

GregH wrote:

 

I find it interesting that the very same people who lambasted Obama on a daily basis are now preaching sermons that we need to respect Trump.

Even more interesting is how Trump seems to be annoyed that he is not respected by a huge swath of America. I have noticed he sends his lying drones (Spicer and Conway) out to whine that he is not respected enough, and inexplicably, that now he is President, he should be treated differently by the press than when he was running.

Greg, maybe you've got some examples of people who have done what you claim in your first sentence there?  Evidence of daily, or near daily statements in opposition of Obama, followed by whole sermons saying we need to respect Trump?  I would dare suggest that a pastor who attempted the first half of this would have alienated non-Republicans from his church to the point where it would be needless for him to say "we need to support Trump" at all, let alone occupy a whole sermon with it.  You might get a series of public statements castigating Obama followed by a public statement supporting Trump, but not a sermon.  And "daily" is pushing credibility as well.

I think you need to admit that statement was hyperbole--yes, we're a fractured society, but no need to exaggerate it for rhetoric's sake.

And funny, I've been saying about the same thing you said in that second paragraph for the past eight years, just with the names "Obama", "Pfeiffer", and "Palmieri" substituted for "Trump", "Spicer", and "Conway."  Along those lines, we need to be careful of the "FactCheck" articles claiming such and such is a lie, as all too often, what goes on is that the "FactCheck" people change the terms of the question, redefine it, or use a single point of reference to "refute" the claim when any good journalist (or reasonably aware non-journalist) knows that there are multiple points of reference that speak to the claim.

Not that I would claim that Trump has always been honest--he has, like his predecessors, said some doozies--but if you don't catch on that the fact-checkers are pulling some strings in a pretty clear pattern, you're just not thinking.

Yes, I meant daily. I mean the people like Sean Hannity and his ilk. I mean some of the people in my FB feed. I mean lots of people both public and private. I don't recant what I said. And when I said sermons, I don't mean from a pulpit. And no I am not going to debate the definition of sermon and whether I misused it. I think reasonable people knew what I meant.

In my opinion, Trump is the first president that will look into a camera and tell a bold faced lie, knowing that he can be proved wrong easily but with the strategy that he will just castigate those who dare to call him out (labeling anything negative as fake news, etc). The example of the murder rate being at a 47 year high is an example. He has said this multiple times. It is laughably wrong and there is not a chance that he has not had his people warn him that he is wrong. Yet he keeps doing it. He is essentially trying to create his own convenient version of truth through the media by control and smear tactics. It is scary.

I am sure that Obama, the Bushes, and every president has lied. But Trump really does take it to a whole new level. He lies with no fear of being called out on it. There is no regard for truth because he knows he can take to Twitter and recast truth to match his needs.

 

Yup. The first President who will tell a bold faced lie

GregH wrote:

<snip>

In my opinion, Trump is the first president that will look into a camera and tell a bold faced lie, knowing that he can be proved wrong easily but with the strategy that he will just castigate those who dare to call him out (labeling anything negative as fake news, etc). The example of the murder rate being at a 47 year high is an example. He has said this multiple times. It is laughably wrong and there is not a chance that he has not had his people warn him that he is wrong. Yet he keeps doing it. He is essentially trying to create his own convenient version of truth through the media by control and smear tactics. It is scary.

I am sure that Obama, the Bushes, and every president has lied. But Trump really does take it to a whole new level. He lies with no fear of being called out on it. There is no regard for truth because he knows he can take to Twitter and recast truth to match his needs.

 

I want you to listen to me.....I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.

Honestly, Greg, there is political bias, and there is simple detachment from reality, and you're getting to be clearly on the wrong side of that divide.  And ya wanna be scared, watch this one.

Bert, don't worry about where

Bert, don't worry about where I am politically. Probably it is a waste of time but I will tell you the difference between Trump lies and the lie you bring up from Clinton. (The Obama statement I would not consider a lie but the Clinton statement is.)

Clinton told that lie expecting not to be found out. He lied to hide the truth. And he would not have lied if he had known that the truth would come out as it did.

Trump tells lies knowing that he will be found out and not caring because he believes he can basically castigate his enemies and recast truth to meet his needs. He believes that if for example, he gives his absurd murder rate statistic enough, enough people will believe it so it doesn't even matter what the real truth is. Same thing about his claim that 3 million people voted illegally in the last election and his inane claims about his inauguration crowd. Truth to Trump is what he believes and what he can get others to believe.

In other words, those that hate post modernism have elected themselves the ultimate postmodernist. Congratulations...

 

Not worried at all

....where you are politically, because that is self-evident from your comments.  However, when you make the ludicrous claim that Obama's "if you like your plan/doctor, you can keep it/him" was not a lie, you're starting to show something I am concerned about, which is detachment from reality.

It is a lie because when Obama said it, he knew that the Affordable Care Act and the regulations he planned to implement it would make a large number of insurance plans illegal, which in turn would force many people to choose new doctors.  Anyone who has ever had to choose between healthcare plans--as Obama did as a community organizer in Chicago--knows full well that a key factor in choosing a plan is to choose the one, if possible, that covers your doctor.

In the same way, when Obama was claiming he was going to run the "most transparent administration in history", he knew full well that he was preparing to appoint people who would be stonewalling FOIA requests.  Sorry, brother, but that's a lie.

In contrast, when Trump said that the murder rate was the highest in 47 years, he does have the plausible deniability that he didn't know the actual statistics.  Hence Politifact says that he was "wrong" but not "lying". 

And the "three million illegal voters"?  Well, on one side, Trump doesn't have the evidence to prove it, and on the other side, we really haven't done the audit of voting records to disprove it.  It's at least more plausible than Clinton on Lewinsky, or Obama vis-a-vis being able to keep your plan or doctor.

Not that Trump hasn't lied on occasion, but if you're going to argue that his lying is of an entirely different genre than that of Clinton or Obama, you've really got to improve your evidence.

Bert Perry wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

....where you are politically, because that is self-evident from your comments.  However, when you make the ludicrous claim that Obama's "if you like your plan/doctor, you can keep it/him" was not a lie, you're starting to show something I am concerned about, which is detachment from reality.

It is a lie because when Obama said it, he knew that the Affordable Care Act and the regulations he planned to implement it would make a large number of insurance plans illegal, which in turn would force many people to choose new doctors.  Anyone who has ever had to choose between healthcare plans--as Obama did as a community organizer in Chicago--knows full well that a key factor in choosing a plan is to choose the one, if possible, that covers your doctor.

In the same way, when Obama was claiming he was going to run the "most transparent administration in history", he knew full well that he was preparing to appoint people who would be stonewalling FOIA requests.  Sorry, brother, but that's a lie.

In contrast, when Trump said that the murder rate was the highest in 47 years, he does have the plausible deniability that he didn't know the actual statistics.  Hence Politifact says that he was "wrong" but not "lying". 

And the "three million illegal voters"?  Well, on one side, Trump doesn't have the evidence to prove it, and on the other side, we really haven't done the audit of voting records to disprove it.  It's at least more plausible than Clinton on Lewinsky, or Obama vis-a-vis being able to keep your plan or doctor.

Not that Trump hasn't lied on occasion, but if you're going to argue that his lying is of an entirely different genre than that of Clinton or Obama, you've really got to improve your evidence.

I would not label your thoughts a lie. I would label a lot of them ridiculous though Smile

The only thing we agree on Bert is that we think the other is detached from reality. So be it.

A good comparison to "47%"

....would be when Obama infamously called the Fort Hood shooting "workplace violence" instead of the Islamic terrorist attack that it was, ignoring the many signs of his radicalization going back at least to 2007.  In fact, it's worse, again because regarding the "47%" comment, Trump had plausible deniability.  Obama had been receiving daily briefings on what people knew about the perpetrator and does not have that plausible deniability, but persisted in calling it "workplace violence" for years.

So is Trump really the "worst liar ever", or is the press showing that they've got some rather selective memory?

Don't get me wrong; I am very concerned at many of the quite frankly reckless things our President has said.  The one about Mexico "not sending their best and brightest" especially--it's not as if illegal immigration is coordinated from Mexico City, after all.  They're "sending" nobody, whatever the other characteristics of those who come.  I've been concerned about his penchant for "attack dog" tactics as well.  But that said, even that isn't that much different from Obama saying, in effect, that conservatives can sit in the back of the bus back in 2009, or scratching his face with his middle finger on numerous occasions.

Waste of time

No, the 47% lie is different from what Obama said. Obama was political in what he said about that shooting. He happens to believe (because it is true) that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists and dumping that label on them unnecessarily is counter productive. You may not agree with the term he used but that does not make it a lie. It makes it a difference of opinion and by the way, I dare say he has a better grasp of the world dangers of Islam than you.

Lying about the 47% is like telling your children that 2+2=5. It is cut and dried. Numbers are numbers. Yes, there may be a few bodies missing from the murder count but the numbers are very accurate. 

 

Only if you won't listen to evidence, Greg.

Really, Greg, the only way you get to "workplace violence" instead of "terrorism" in the Fort Hood case is to ignore everything Nidal Hasan said about his motivations, which was 100% Islamic and 100% jihad.  He even sent emails to a terrorist implicated in the 9/11 attacks.  Now granted, the government somehow did conclude that it was just "workplace violence"--hard to say no to the Commander in Chief, I'd imagine--but it's still a lie. 

Again, with this, Benghazi, the ACA, and much more, if you're going to argue that Trump's lies are completely new, you're fooling yourself.  

Regarding Obama's understanding of Islam....with half of Syria's population as refugees, Libya under rival Islamist rule, the Turks forming strong Islamist tendencies and undermining their secular state, and the Iranians having just launched a ballistic missile while over 100,000 Iranian soldiers and auxiliary forces spread terror through the region, that point might be debated, don't you think?  At the very least, giving Teheran billions of dollars that they promised to use for terrorism was something of an error, don't you think?

Really, the softpedaling of radical Islamic atrocities reminds me a lot of the way all the "smart people" thought it was wise to do the same for the atrocities of the USSR.  It all seemed so smart until somebody finally said the truth--that it was an evil empire--and a few years later, it was gone.   Sometimes it's a good idea to ignore the diplomats and call it what it is. 

'truth' in pop culture

I would like to ask Cuomo, "Do you believe in absolute truth? What is truth, to you? How do you define it? How do you determine it? Why does it seem that so many in the media were not nearly so interested in pursuing truth for truth's sake under the previous administration?"

Honestly?  With the press and media we have, it seems like 'truth' really means 'whatever I want it to be' or 'whatever advances my preferred narrative as a journalist'.  Which, incidentially, may be why Trump is beating on the media so much.  He knows that they pick and choose sides and stories to promote or bury whatever they feel like is important.  It's the old "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" (Who watches the watchmen?') conundrum.

I'd recommend everyone here listen to Al Mohler's "Thinking In Public" podcast from Monday on the Benedict Option.  He spent quite a bit of time discussing how postmodernism has utterly hollowed out the existence of truth in American culture with Rod Dreher, and why the Benedict Option may be Christianity's best response to it.  It was fascinating listening, although it was very troubling.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Bert Perry wrote:

Bert Perry wrote:

Really, Greg, the only way you get to "workplace violence" instead of "terrorism" in the Fort Hood case is to ignore everything Nidal Hasan said about his motivations, which was 100% Islamic and 100% jihad.  He even sent emails to a terrorist implicated in the 9/11 attacks.  Now granted, the government somehow did conclude that it was just "workplace violence"--hard to say no to the Commander in Chief, I'd imagine--but it's still a lie. 

Again, with this, Benghazi, the ACA, and much more, if you're going to argue that Trump's lies are completely new, you're fooling yourself.  

Regarding Obama's understanding of Islam....with half of Syria's population as refugees, Libya under rival Islamist rule, the Turks forming strong Islamist tendencies and undermining their secular state, and the Iranians having just launched a ballistic missile while over 100,000 Iranian soldiers and auxiliary forces spread terror through the region, that point might be debated, don't you think?  At the very least, giving Teheran billions of dollars that they promised to use for terrorism was something of an error, don't you think?

Really, the softpedaling of radical Islamic atrocities reminds me a lot of the way all the "smart people" thought it was wise to do the same for the atrocities of the USSR.  It all seemed so smart until somebody finally said the truth--that it was an evil empire--and a few years later, it was gone.   Sometimes it's a good idea to ignore the diplomats and call it what it is. 

And you demonstrate the problem Bert. You are so right in your own mind and so dug in on your political ideology that someone who disagrees with you is a liar if they state a different viewpoint. Obama did not describe an attack like you think he should. Therefore he is a liar. All right then...

It is not a popular thing to say here and the other Greg will attack for this probably but it is absurd that armchair quarterbacks are so dogmatic about issues that more informed men and women debate from both sides. Reminds me of a quote: those that know all the answers do not even know the questions.

Ding Ding. Bert came out swinging Greg H a Southpaw defending.

Wow both sides make good points but Greg H Bert is right about the Islamic countries and their move toward militant Islam. Except Saudi Arabia was not mentioned.  

Saudi Arabia is the biggest jihadist pusher of them all. They have pushed their militant Islam on everyone.  Who do you think finances the schools in Pakistain. They are influencing even the moslems in the Balkans who were previously very moderate.  

The only difference between Endogran  and ISIS is he wants to head the caliphate and resurect the Ottaman Empire.  

I did not vote for Trump but his concern for the Moslems is very real.   I agree with what he is doing from a safety stand point.   

Additionally, if Saudi Arabia or Endogran had a magic bullet or the fire power to put us under sharia law they would do it in a Manhattan minute.  The only reason they don't is because they don't have the fire power period.  That's the truth and if anyone believes otherwise they are  a fool.  Endogran is an Islamist and violates his own constitution which was set up so the Ottamans could not return to power.  

Absolutely, Greg

GregH wrote:

 

Bert Perry wrote:

<snip>

 

And you demonstrate the problem Bert. You are so right in your own mind and so dug in on your political ideology that someone who disagrees with you is a liar if they state a different viewpoint. Obama did not describe an attack like you think he should. Therefore he is a liar. All right then...

It is not a popular thing to say here and the other Greg will attack for this probably but it is absurd that armchair quarterbacks are so dogmatic about issues that more informed men and women debate from both sides. Reminds me of a quote: those that know all the answers do not even know the questions.

Yup, I'm a knee-jerk supporter of Trump, which explains a lot of my comments calling him a liar, pointing out his bankruptcies and adulteries, saying his brand is tacky, and more.   In fact, I'm so stuck on my own ideology, and such an armchair quarterback sitting on the sidelines, that I wavered between caucusing for Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Nothing says "armchair ideologue" like spending hours in a high school gym and choosing the man I admit was weaker on immigration over the man whose tendencies might land him in trouble.  Nuance and compromise simply have no place in my life, obviously. 

Or it could be because "terrorism" has a definition, and Nidal Hasan's religiously motivated actions fit that definition, where Obama's claim did not.  This matters because victims were deprived of benefits, and politically, Obama used the decision (and others) to claim that terrorism hadn't occurred on our shores--despite a fair number of religiously motivated incidents not designated as "terrorism" by Mr. Obama.. 

And let's apply a test here; if, say, "Aryan Nations" types or pro-lifers were to commit a string of atrocities like this, and President Trump called it "workplace violence", you'd call him a pathetic liar.  And you know what?  You'd be right.

(there's that knee-jerk ideologue in me speaking again...)


▴ Top of page