FWIW, FOX is matter-of-factly described as “official TV network of President Trump” by Russian state media and they’re treating is as such.
As in “President Trump’s official channel yesterday announced…”
2 Likes
I was surprised that Trump gave Jeff Glor of CBS “Hannity-Like” access for an interview.
You have to wonder about how much control Trump had on the questions and in post-production.
(I know, I know…that sounds like a bit much…but Trump has been granting sit-down interviews to FOX almost exclusively… thus my surprise…)
Haven’t completely followed this thread, but thought this belonged:
1 Like
You know what burns me (among other things), @Tyler23?
Trump has been in the Public Eye for probably more that 50-plus years of his 72.
Not once do I recall him being; or even professing to be; some strong Conservative voice, fighting for the Conservative cause. Nor do I ever recall him either being embraced by the Conservative community as one of its strong voices, or even speaking at a Conservative conference…or even at the graduation of a small, Conservative Christian School.
Yet now he is some great defender of the Conservative cause?
I wish there was a stronger word for a hypocrite.
4 Likes
Some of the things he’s advocated for are Conservative but I do not think any conservative worth their weight in Reagan’s would consider him a great defender of “Conservative causes” (I would ask you to qualify what you mean by that, but I think you’re coming from a good place).
Of course, there are loud voices who are considered conservative (talking about pundits - especially at Fox) who are seemingly all aboard the Trump train which is, well, disappointed considering a good portion of their audience tends to be somewhat hive minded (same can be said about any pundit or outlet - but none-the-less here we are).
I mean, hypocrite describes him, and clearly others, pretty well. What more to you want to emphasize where hypocrite falls short? I’m genuinely curious where it falls short wrt to DJT?
1 Like
It more hyperbole on my part because of my frustration with Trump, @polo77j.
Hypocrite is fine.
1 Like
Completely fair and understandable
I agree that the degree of cynicism and naked demagoguery displayed by Trump warrants a stronger word that hypocrisy. Maybe duplicity? Fraud?
1 Like
I feel that Paul is consistent with a libertarian position of removing government bureaucrats who hold power indefinitely unchecked. That’s basically what the intelligence community is.
That said, a security clearance isn’t carte blanche to walk into a government building and just get answers to questions. It’s always on a need to know basis. A security clearance just means that if you have a need to know, they can tell you.
It’s actually normal for a security clearance to persist after a person leaves a position where they have need for it. They no longer have access to any information because they don’t need to know. But if they get a new job or position, they don’t have to be re-vetted.
2 Likes
Paul going after the clearance of ONE EX-bureaucrat (who just happened to be critical of Trump) constitutes his taking a principled stand wherein he seeks to ‘remove govt bureaucrats who hold power indefinitely’? An action he has never (to my knowledge) undertaken before? Color me deeply skeptical.
I think the more likely reason is what has been brought up before…
A sort of “reset” and solidifying his position with the Voters of Kentucky.
It’s an opportunistic move to get something that he supports.
Is that libertarian or Machiavellian?
I’m not sure why the surprise? If Paul (Rand) thinks he hears something, anything, that sounds like saber rattling, he’ll oppose it.
Yes.
As I said earlier; I admit to not having a good “feel” for Libertarian Philosophy (much like I don’t quite understand the meaning of “Liberal” and “Conservative” when discussing the Political Parties of, say, the UK).
Paul was a strong critic of Trump…until he wasn’t…
It just that if ANY member of Congress was going to come out in support of some “Trumpian” initiative…the first person I would have thought of was NOT Rand Paul.
The way Trump treated him during the primaries, any other self-respecting man would have an admirable life-long grudge. The fact that Trump would stoop to those levels should have told Paul something about him as a person. I suppose that Trump’s character doesn’t matter anymore. It’s hard to present yourself as a stand up, principled man when you are whoring yourself for votes and a positive Tweet from the president.
This is it. He hasn’t cared about this security clearance issue until it became recent news, and Paul wants/needs to get in front of cameras (since he hasn’t been in a while) and to shore up the Trumpkin votes in the Bluegrass State.
1 Like
Regarding Rand Paul, I think that there is a Trump plan to work him into the presidency effectively as his successor. He’s the only potential GOP candidate who Trump did not lambaste, he appeals to the “independent” base (in fact I could see him win in a Libertarian state like Colorado), but he doesn’t lose the evangelicals. I don’t know, its just been my feeling for a while. Either he could replace Pence on the ticket or run for the GOP nomination with a Trump endorsement. The GOP is already basically two different parties, “establishment” and Trump forming an often contentious coalition. They are kind of a super party. I guess the Dems are also teamed up with the Democratic Socialists with similar contentiousness. The dynamics also somewhat deter Trump from making too many moves for the Theocrats. Liberals try to present Libertarians as being ultra conservative, but they are really a mixed “middle” that see themselves as equally endangered by Socialism and Theocracy. Up until now, Trump has done a pretty good job of telling the Theocrats that he is open to Theocratic policies, and winking at Libertarians and also capturing blue collar “dems”.
I read this as saying Paul isn’t, or won’t be again, critical of Trump on other issues aside from the one(s) he agrees with him on. One can agree with anyone on certain policy issues and disagree on others.
I’m not sure if that’s the sentiment you’re getting at; if I misinterpreted your meaning, apologies.