2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[runrussellrun]

My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on.

Let's not forget that pretty much the entire GOP said/did the same thing in 2016. They just don't say it now. TAATS

Lindsey Graham: "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."

Mitt Romney: "Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these."

McCain, Flake, Corker, Paul Ryan ("textbook racism"), Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, Bill Weld, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo and so many others all said the same things.

May not be a winning political strategy, but pretty much everyone running against Trump sees it the exact same way. It isn't a coincidence.

Unfortunately it's the simple truth staring us in the face.

I read the reporting on what the NYT's editor "said". Sure seems to me that he's acknowledged that the dominant journalistic 'story' of the past couple of years was the Russia investigation. They competed hard to get the story, to track down the connections and to report on them. They 'built the newsroom' to 'get' that story and did quite solid work, with deep, long form examinations of the Russian effort.

But post Mueller Report, now the "story" is being shaped by the most resonant current events. These too are wrapped up in Trump, his tweets, his policies. He's the President and he's the biggest elephant in the room every day...and he insists on that being the case. And those current events are all thematically tied to race relations, whether fear of demographic change, the rise of violence tied to race, to brown kids in cages, to "send her back".

The editor is acknowledging that the newsroom will need to shift resources to work on this theme, one which he acknowledges they have not been built to do as well. But he's committing those resources. That means long form examinations of the history of race relations and their implications today.

There's no escaping Trump and his being intertwined in this topic. It's his own core theme, from the birther myth, CLINTONS to Mexican rapists and criminals Mccain said the same thing, to the Muslim Ban, no Christians or 7th Day Advantagist's in any of those countries ? it's how he introduced himself and his themes to the American people. And at every turn he's fanned the flames of racial division. Guess you missed the story, from 2009, where Hispanics beat up blacks, BUT Obama did NOT get blamed?? He misses no opportunity to weigh in divisively. And it's building into something of a crescendo.

Some folks like that.
In fact, a heck of a lot do.

Most of the Republican politicians are now cowed by how large and active that group of Trump supporters actually is, and their willingness to primary and defeat any GOP pol who dares speak up anymore on this issue. The Trumpists demand complete obeisance to Der Leader. Nothing less will do.

Why don't you pick up the phone and get Hogan going? Meanwhile, everything everyone has been writing about the Dim Dems is ALL they got is the race card.

And......you really are glossing over the fact that the NY Times is driving the news, NOT reporting it? Why isn't the Ny Times the news towards increased spending, wasteful spending.....missing billions? NY times researching stories of decades old toxic waste sites still untouched, cleaned up and why? They have been a joke for a long long time.

[youthathletics]

My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on.

Let's not forget that pretty much the entire GOP said/did the same thing in 2016. They just don't say it now. TAATS

Lindsey Graham: "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."

Mitt Romney: "Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these."

McCain, Flake, Corker, Paul Ryan ("textbook racism"), Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, Bill Weld, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo and so many others all said the same things.

May not be a winning political strategy, but pretty much everyone running against Trump sees it the exact same way. It isn't a coincidence.

Unfortunately it's the simple truth staring us in the face.

I read the reporting on what the NYT's editor "said". Sure seems to me that he's acknowledged that the dominant journalistic 'story' of the past couple of years was the Russia investigation. They competed hard to get the story, to track down the connections and to report on them. They 'built the newsroom' to 'get' that story and did quite solid work, with deep, long form examinations of the Russian effort.

But post Mueller Report, now the "story" is being shaped by the most resonant current events. These too are wrapped up in Trump, his tweets, his policies. He's the President and he's the biggest elephant in the room every day...and he insists on that being the case. And those current events are all thematically tied to race relations, whether fear of demographic change, the rise of violence tied to race, to brown kids in cages, to "send her back".

The editor is acknowledging that the newsroom will need to shift resources to work on this theme, one which he acknowledges they have not been built to do as well. But he's committing those resources. That means long form examinations of the history of race relations and their implications today.

There's no escaping Trump and his being intertwined in this topic. It's his own core theme, from the birther myth, CLINTONS to Mexican rapists and criminals Mccain said the same thing, to the Muslim Ban, no Christians or 7th Day Advantagist's in any of those countries ? it's how he introduced himself and his themes to the American people. And at every turn he's fanned the flames of racial division. Guess you missed the story, from 2009, where Hispanics beat up blacks, BUT Obama did NOT get blamed?? He misses no opportunity to weigh in divisively. And it's building into something of a crescendo.

Some folks like that.
In fact, a heck of a lot do.

Most of the Republican politicians are now cowed by how large and active that group of Trump supporters actually is, and their willingness to primary and defeat any GOP pol who dares speak up anymore on this issue. The Trumpists demand complete obeisance to Der Leader. Nothing less will do.

Why don't you pick up the phone and get Hogan going? Meanwhile, everything everyone has been writing about the Dim Dems is ALL they got is the race card.

And......you really are glossing over the fact that the NY Times is driving the news, NOT reporting it? Why isn't the Ny Times the news towards increased spending, wasteful spending.....missing billions? NY times researching stories of decades old toxic waste sites still untouched, cleaned up and why? They have been a joke for a long long time.

Because narrative sells papers and clicks, not news. It's the new soap opera. I get my news from MD, whatever he says I find the opposite as true. We need the poking stick emoji.

[runrussellrun]

I have him on ignore. There's a guy that could benefit from TLD's correspondence course on how to say snarky sanguines in 10 words or less.

[MDlaxfan76]

My POINT is that this is a concerted effort to use racism to defeat Trump. The left has nothing else to run on.

Let's not forget that pretty much the entire GOP said/did the same thing in 2016. They just don't say it now. TAATS

Lindsey Graham: "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."

Mitt Romney: "Today, there is a contest between Trumpism and Republicanism. Through the calculated statements of its leader, Trumpism has become associated with racism, misogyny, bigotry, xenophobia, vulgarity and, most recently, threats and violence. I am repulsed by each and every one of these."

McCain, Flake, Corker, Paul Ryan ("textbook racism"), Rubio, Jeb, Kasich, Bill Weld, Ted Cruz, Mike Pompeo and so many others all said the same things.

May not be a winning political strategy, but pretty much everyone running against Trump sees it the exact same way. It isn't a coincidence.

Unfortunately it's the simple truth staring us in the face.

I read the reporting on what the NYT's editor "said". Sure seems to me that he's acknowledged that the dominant journalistic 'story' of the past couple of years was the Russia investigation. They competed hard to get the story, to track down the connections and to report on them. They 'built the newsroom' to 'get' that story and did quite solid work, with deep, long form examinations of the Russian effort.

But post Mueller Report, now the "story" is being shaped by the most resonant current events. These too are wrapped up in Trump, his tweets, his policies. He's the President and he's the biggest elephant in the room every day...and he insists on that being the case. And those current events are all thematically tied to race relations, whether fear of demographic change, the rise of violence tied to race, to brown kids in cages, to "send her back".

The editor is acknowledging that the newsroom will need to shift resources to work on this theme, one which he acknowledges they have not been built to do as well. But he's committing those resources. That means long form examinations of the history of race relations and their implications today.

There's no escaping Trump and his being intertwined in this topic. It's his own core theme, from the birther myth, CLINTONS to Mexican rapists and criminals Mccain said the same thing, to the Muslim Ban, no Christians or 7th Day Advantagist's in any of those countries ? it's how he introduced himself and his themes to the American people. And at every turn he's fanned the flames of racial division. Guess you missed the story, from 2009, where Hispanics beat up blacks, BUT Obama did NOT get blamed?? He misses no opportunity to weigh in divisively. And it's building into something of a crescendo.

Some folks like that.
In fact, a heck of a lot do.

Most of the Republican politicians are now cowed by how large and active that group of Trump supporters actually is, and their willingness to primary and defeat any GOP pol who dares speak up anymore on this issue. The Trumpists demand complete obeisance to Der Leader. Nothing less will do.

Why don't you pick up the phone and get Hogan going? Meanwhile, everything everyone has been writing about the Dim Dems is ALL they got is the race card.

And......you really are glossing over the fact that the NY Times is driving the news, NOT reporting it? Why isn't the Ny Times the news towards increased spending, wasteful spending.....missing billions? NY times researching stories of decades old toxic waste sites still untouched, cleaned up and why? They have been a joke for a long long time.

Because narrative sells papers and clicks, not news. It's the new soap opera. I get my news from MD, whatever he says I find the opposite as true. We need the poking stick emoji.

RRR, I'm generally good with Hogan, as are a big majority of Marylanders. Certainly there are those on both the left and the right who snipe at him, sometimes with sound reason, but overall he's done a balanced job in my book, minimizing divisiveness.

No, I don't buy for a moment that the NYT is driving rather than reporting the news. I don't see the rise of white nationalist/white supremacist violence, for instance, being due to the NYT's choice of reporting. It's real.

Some folks want all day Fox and Friends style reporting, but I don't.

But yes, the news organizations have always been in the business of selling "eyeballs". Readership and engagement of that readership translates into dollars to pay the journalists. It's Always been a business. The question for us 'eyeballs' though is to determine whether we simply want to be told what we already think, regardless of the truth, or whether we value those organizations who "sell" on the basis of delivering credible reality and in-depth analysis. In other words, do they follow journalistic ethics, checking their facts extensively and admitting when they got it wrong? Is that even a concern for the organization?

Some care, some don't.
I prefer those that actually care, are embarrassed when they get something wrong.
EG WSJ, NYT...different editorial perspective but both care about getting the facts correct.

The rather idiotic comments interspersed above (not sure whether that was RRR or youth) are wrong on their face. EG Trump called for a ban on all Muslims, not just folks from some countries. It was about Islam, period. This nonsense of trying to use whataboutism and deflection are just gross. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he wants the support of avowed racists and bigots. Get over it. It doesn't mean that you have to support that aspect of who he is. You are free to reject that portion of his message.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

there is a difference between should win and would win.

I do think that Michelle would stand a better chance of winning than most of the Dem field. With that said, I don't know that I think being 1st lady qualifies as relevant experience for the job.

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.

i agree with this. star power counts. hence, DJ Trump.

things like name recognition mean much more to the busy american (unfortunately) than things like platform, position, policy, ethics, etc.

and so we all make the mistake of debating someones actual ideas (or worse, their words), as if they really matter.

what really matters is- who do the entrenched political machines foist upon us; and, undecided/swing voters (particularly in critical states).

just my opinion; the rest is somewhat... irrelevant.

[MDlaxfan76]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

there is a difference between should win and would win.

I do think that Michelle would stand a better chance of winning than most of the Dem field. With that said, I don't know that I think being 1st lady qualifies as relevant experience for the job.

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.

i agree with this. star power counts. hence, DJ Trump.

things like name recognition mean much more to the busy american (unfortunately) than things like platform, position, policy, ethics, etc.

and so we all make the mistake of debating someones actual ideas (or worse, their words), as if they really matter.

what really matters is- who do the entrenched political machines foist upon us; and, undecided/swing voters (particularly in critical states).

just my opinion; the rest is somewhat... irrelevant.

I've been having an interesting discussion over the last 48 hours with an 80 year old gal up here at the lake in NH to visit with my mom. Both gals lost their husbands last winter.

She's all-in for Trump. She's not the brightest bulb, but not a total dummy either.
Affluent, reasonably cultured, not herself particularly bigoted though 'of her generation'.

She's pressed me on why I don't support Trump, so I've tried, with good humor interspersed, to share with her my views on why I think he's dishonest in business and personal life, racist or at least welcomes the support of racists, a misogynist, a serial assaulter of women, and then back to dishonest. I've tried to explain that I simply can't support any of those as the standard bearer of my beliefs or political allegiance. Any one of those being disqualifying for me. Regardless of party.

It's been fascinating how when I cite detailed specifics she says "I never heard that" "I never heard him say that" or "I don't care about that". Or "what about Clinton (easy, I didn't support Bill and I didn't support Hillary). Yet, if we talk more hypothetically about the issues of race or religion or honesty etc, she's quite reasonable. She just doesn't think they apply to him "I never heard that".

Total and complete blinders as to Trump.
"You don't want Pocohontas do you?"

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

i agree with all.

lake sunapee?

[youthathletics]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

there is a difference between should win and would win.

I do think that Michelle would stand a better chance of winning than most of the Dem field. With that said, I don't know that I think being 1st lady qualifies as relevant experience for the job.

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.

i agree with this. star power counts. hence, DJ Trump.

things like name recognition mean much more to the busy american (unfortunately) than things like platform, position, policy, ethics, etc.

and so we all make the mistake of debating someones actual ideas (or worse, their words), as if they really matter.

what really matters is- who do the entrenched political machines foist upon us; and, undecided/swing voters (particularly in critical states).

just my opinion; the rest is somewhat... irrelevant.

I've been having an interesting discussion over the last 48 hours with an 80 year old gal up here at the lake in NH to visit with my mom. Both gals lost their husbands last winter.

She's all-in for Trump. She's not the brightest bulb, but not a total dummy either.
Affluent, reasonably cultured, not herself particularly bigoted though 'of her generation'.

She's pressed me on why I don't support Trump, so I've tried, with good humor interspersed, to share with her my views on why I think he's dishonest in business and personal life, racist or at least welcomes the support of racists, a misogynist, a serial assaulter of women, and then back to dishonest. I've tried to explain that I simply can't support any of those as the standard bearer of my beliefs or political allegiance. Any one of those being disqualifying for me. Regardless of party.

It's been fascinating how when I cite detailed specifics she says "I never heard that" "I never heard him say that" or "I don't care about that". Or "what about Clinton (easy, I didn't support Bill and I didn't support Hillary). Yet, if we talk more hypothetically about the issues of race or religion or honesty etc, she's quite reasonable. She just doesn't think they apply to him "I never heard that".

Total and complete blinders as to Trump.
"You don't want Pocohontas do you?"

You make me laugh with your self gratuitous stories. MD. Anyway, Michelle could never win, why? because the crazy left said damned near everyone is racist who disagrees with them.

[MDlaxfan76]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

there is a difference between should win and would win.

I do think that Michelle would stand a better chance of winning than most of the Dem field. With that said, I don't know that I think being 1st lady qualifies as relevant experience for the job.

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.

i agree with this. star power counts. hence, DJ Trump.

things like name recognition mean much more to the busy american (unfortunately) than things like platform, position, policy, ethics, etc.

and so we all make the mistake of debating someones actual ideas (or worse, their words), as if they really matter.

what really matters is- who do the entrenched political machines foist upon us; and, undecided/swing voters (particularly in critical states).

just my opinion; the rest is somewhat... irrelevant.

I've been having an interesting discussion over the last 48 hours with an 80 year old gal up here at the lake in NH to visit with my mom. Both gals lost their husbands last winter.

She's all-in for Trump. She's not the brightest bulb, but not a total dummy either.
Affluent, reasonably cultured, not herself particularly bigoted though 'of her generation'.

She's pressed me on why I don't support Trump, so I've tried, with good humor interspersed, to share with her my views on why I think he's dishonest in business and personal life, racist or at least welcomes the support of racists, a misogynist, a serial assaulter of women, and then back to dishonest. I've tried to explain that I simply can't support any of those as the standard bearer of my beliefs or political allegiance. Any one of those being disqualifying for me. Regardless of party.

It's been fascinating how when I cite detailed specifics she says "I never heard that" "I never heard him say that" or "I don't care about that". Or "what about Clinton (easy, I didn't support Bill and I didn't support Hillary). Yet, if we talk more hypothetically about the issues of race or religion or honesty etc, she's quite reasonable. She just doesn't think they apply to him "I never heard that".

Total and complete blinders as to Trump.
"You don't want Pocohontas do you?"

You make me laugh with your self gratuitous stories. MD. Anyway, Michelle could never win, why? because the crazy left said damned near everyone is racist who disagrees with them.

Just describing my experience.

I don't understand the crack re Michelle. I think we've established that a majority of people actually aren't so racist that they won't support a black man for President. Probably would support a black woman. Whole bunch of people would not, but not a majority, thankfully.

The challenge for Dems is that a majority of voters isn't sufficient to win the Presidency. But her husband won the majority in a bunch of states that Hillary lost, so hard to argue that another attractive black candidate couldn't do the same.

[ABV 8.3%]

i agree with all.

lake sunapee?

MDLax is more of a Squam kind of guy....

[ABV 8.3%]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

there is a difference between should win and would win.

I do think that Michelle would stand a better chance of winning than most of the Dem field. With that said, I don't know that I think being 1st lady qualifies as relevant experience for the job.

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.

i agree with this. star power counts. hence, DJ Trump.

things like name recognition mean much more to the busy american (unfortunately) than things like platform, position, policy, ethics, etc.

and so we all make the mistake of debating someones actual ideas (or worse, their words), as if they really matter.

what really matters is- who do the entrenched political machines foist upon us; and, undecided/swing voters (particularly in critical states).

just my opinion; the rest is somewhat... irrelevant.

I've been having an interesting discussion over the last 48 hours with an 80 year old gal up here at the lake in NH to visit with my mom. Both gals lost their husbands last winter.

She's all-in for Trump. She's not the brightest bulb, but not a total dummy either.
Affluent, reasonably cultured, not herself particularly bigoted though 'of her generation'.

She's pressed me on why I don't support Trump, so I've tried, with good humor interspersed, to share with her my views on why I think he's dishonest in business and personal life, racist or at least welcomes the support of racists, a misogynist, a serial assaulter of women, and then back to dishonest. I've tried to explain that I simply can't support any of those as the standard bearer of my beliefs or political allegiance. Any one of those being disqualifying for me. Regardless of party.

It's been fascinating how when I cite detailed specifics she says "I never heard that" "I never heard him say that" or "I don't care about that". Or "what about Clinton (easy, I didn't support Bill and I didn't support Hillary). Yet, if we talk more hypothetically about the issues of race or religion or honesty etc, she's quite reasonable. She just doesn't think they apply to him "I never heard that".

Total and complete blinders as to Trump.
"You don't want Pocohontas do you?"

So, on the issues, you pretty much came up empty, is what you're telling us.....

[MDlaxfan76]

i agree with all.

lake sunapee?

MDLax is more of a Squam kind of guy....

Correct, "On Golden Pond".
Nothing against Sunapee.

6 couples coming this weekend, Gilman classmates, for a night on Squam and then over to Winnepesaukee for a night at a buddy's home there. Latter went to Dartmouth with me and my wife, played baseball. Lives in Dallas. Another went to Duke an played baseball there, lives in N. Carolina. Two others were both All-American lacrosse players at Princeton, Baltimore and Boston; last played lax at Cornell lives in DC. The first night at the Cornell guy's home overlooking Squam, unbelievable view, converted barn home. Gonna be fun.

[MDlaxfan76]

Michelle would crush Trump, but reportedly she is loathe to get into the fray.

Michelle would win. She'd get the turnout, no question.

Usually I think you two are spot on, but in this case, I beg to differ. What does Michelle bring to the table that the other D candidates don't? I don't see any reason why she would be a better candidate, once she's forced to state views on all the issues out there. Throw in the votes she would lose for being a woman and for being black. And finally, the pure nepotism of it turns me off (as it did with HRC).

there is a difference between should win and would win.

I do think that Michelle would stand a better chance of winning than most of the Dem field. With that said, I don't know that I think being 1st lady qualifies as relevant experience for the job.

And don't kid yourself - the media would not push her to state her views on anything - the media covering her campaign would look like aircraft carrier flight deck guys with their flashlights waving her in.....

Then again, in terms of relevant experience - neither does being a tv show host..... But on that front, there is a big chunk of the electorate that had been chomping at the bit to see if a businessman could do a better job governing than a politician.

i agree with this. star power counts. hence, DJ Trump.

things like name recognition mean much more to the busy american (unfortunately) than things like platform, position, policy, ethics, etc.

and so we all make the mistake of debating someones actual ideas (or worse, their words), as if they really matter.

what really matters is- who do the entrenched political machines foist upon us; and, undecided/swing voters (particularly in critical states).

just my opinion; the rest is somewhat... irrelevant.

I've been having an interesting discussion over the last 48 hours with an 80 year old gal up here at the lake in NH to visit with my mom. Both gals lost their husbands last winter.

She's all-in for Trump. She's not the brightest bulb, but not a total dummy either.
Affluent, reasonably cultured, not herself particularly bigoted though 'of her generation'.

She's pressed me on why I don't support Trump, so I've tried, with good humor interspersed, to share with her my views on why I think he's dishonest in business and personal life, racist or at least welcomes the support of racists, a misogynist, a serial assaulter of women, and then back to dishonest. I've tried to explain that I simply can't support any of those as the standard bearer of my beliefs or political allegiance. Any one of those being disqualifying for me. Regardless of party.

It's been fascinating how when I cite detailed specifics she says "I never heard that" "I never heard him say that" or "I don't care about that". Or "what about Clinton (easy, I didn't support Bill and I didn't support Hillary). Yet, if we talk more hypothetically about the issues of race or religion or honesty etc, she's quite reasonable. She just doesn't think they apply to him "I never heard that".

Total and complete blinders as to Trump.
"You don't want Pocohontas do you?"

So, on the issues, you pretty much came up empty, is what you're telling us.....

Really, that was your takeaway? Or are you just kidding?
No, those are just the disqualifiers.

We did talk about some other issues like the economy, deficit, international trade, etc.
She had the FoxNation talking points down, but same lack of concern with actual facts.
Expressed surprise at some of what I shared.

Kinda disconcerting, but also darn interesting.

[Typical Lax Dad]

i agree with all.

lake sunapee?

MDLax is more of a Squam kind of guy....

Correct, "On Golden Pond".
Nothing against Sunapee.

6 couples coming this weekend, Gilman classmates, for a night on Squam and then over to Winnepesaukee for a night at a buddy's home there. Latter went to Dartmouth with me and my wife, played baseball. Lives in Dallas. Another went to Duke an played baseball there, lives in N. Carolina. Two others were both All-American lacrosse players at Princeton, Baltimore and Boston; last played lax at Cornell lives in DC. The first night at the Cornell guy's home overlooking Squam, unbelievable view, converted barn home. Gonna be fun.

Camp Deerwood is on Squam lake. I had a chance to counsel there one Summer but chose a girl...

[MDlaxfan76]

i agree with all.

lake sunapee?

MDLax is more of a Squam kind of guy....

Correct, "On Golden Pond".
Nothing against Sunapee.

6 couples coming this weekend, Gilman classmates, for a night on Squam and then over to Winnepesaukee for a night at a buddy's home there. Latter went to Dartmouth with me and my wife, played baseball. Lives in Dallas. Another went to Duke an played baseball there, lives in N. Carolina. Two others were both All-American lacrosse players at Princeton, Baltimore and Boston; last played lax at Cornell lives in DC. The first night at the Cornell guy's home overlooking Squam, unbelievable view, converted barn home. Gonna be fun.

Camp Deerwood is on Squam lake. I had a chance to counsel there one Summer but chose a girl...

Ahh girls...

Spent 2 middle school summers at Deerwood, which is how parents discovered Squam.
Now 42 years on the lake as renters for month of August. Wife and I generally made it for one week.
With Pop passed away this winter, needed to be up here for 2 weeks to cover time with mom, sister covered 2 weeks too but then she always did. All 3 of her kids and their beaus made it up, my son is in Shanghai so no joy there this year, no one to drive the boat and let me flail around on slalom skis! So canoeing, kayaking, sailing, biking, hiking...and blueberry pancakes, muffins, and pie...

Only problem is no wifi so rough on data rates...sad story, huh?

After Deerwood, I headed to serious hard core canoe tripping in northern Ontario at Camp Keywaydin. Worked for two years making some dough, then went back summer before senior year for 8 week Hudson Bay trip. Helped immeasurably with my wrestling that year being able to portage 9 miles through swamp...

For lax folks, Deerwood was founded by Ferris Thomsen, long time lax coach at Princeton. His son Tommy was longtime Denison lax coach. Len's kids went to Middlebury and Williams, as I recall, and were first rate players. Probably more...

[Typical Lax Dad]

i agree with all.

lake sunapee?

MDLax is more of a Squam kind of guy....

Correct, "On Golden Pond".
Nothing against Sunapee.

6 couples coming this weekend, Gilman classmates, for a night on Squam and then over to Winnepesaukee for a night at a buddy's home there. Latter went to Dartmouth with me and my wife, played baseball. Lives in Dallas. Another went to Duke an played baseball there, lives in N. Carolina. Two others were both All-American lacrosse players at Princeton, Baltimore and Boston; last played lax at Cornell lives in DC. The first night at the Cornell guy's home overlooking Squam, unbelievable view, converted barn home. Gonna be fun.

Camp Deerwood is on Squam lake. I had a chance to counsel there one Summer but chose a girl...

Ahh girls...

Spent 2 middle school summers at Deerwood, which is how parents discovered Squam.
Now 42 years on the lake as renters for month of August. Wife and I generally made it for one week.
With Pop passed away this winter, needed to be up here for 2 weeks to cover time with mom, sister covered 2 weeks too but then she always did. All 3 of her kids and their beaus made it up, my son is in Shanghai so no joy there this year, no one to drive the boat and let me flail around on slalom skis! So canoeing, kayaking, sailing, biking, hiking...and blueberry pancakes, muffins, and pie...

Only problem is no wifi so rough on data rates...sad story, huh?

After Deerwood, I headed to serious hard core canoe tripping in northern Ontario at Camp Keywaydin. Worked for two years making some dough, then went back summer before senior year for 8 week Hudson Bay trip. Helped immeasurably with my wrestling that year being able to portage 9 miles through swamp...

For lax folks, Deerwood was founded by Ferris Thomsen, long time lax coach at Princeton. His son Tommy was longtime Denison lax coach. Len's kids went to Middlebury and Williams, as I recall, and were first rate players. Probably more...

Man I regret not going.... broke up after being home for 1 week.... spent summer mopping floors and cleaning toilets at a department store from 6:00 am to 10:00 am and was subject to a daily search/pat down when I clocked out..... It sucked....Learned some lifelong lessons

[MDlaxfan76]

i agree with all.

lake sunapee?

MDLax is more of a Squam kind of guy....

Correct, "On Golden Pond".
Nothing against Sunapee.

6 couples coming this weekend, Gilman classmates, for a night on Squam and then over to Winnepesaukee for a night at a buddy's home there. Latter went to Dartmouth with me and my wife, played baseball. Lives in Dallas. Another went to Duke an played baseball there, lives in N. Carolina. Two others were both All-American lacrosse players at Princeton, Baltimore and Boston; last played lax at Cornell lives in DC. The first night at the Cornell guy's home overlooking Squam, unbelievable view, converted barn home. Gonna be fun.

Camp Deerwood is on Squam lake. I had a chance to counsel there one Summer but chose a girl...

Ahh girls...

Spent 2 middle school summers at Deerwood, which is how parents discovered Squam.
Now 42 years on the lake as renters for month of August. Wife and I generally made it for one week.
With Pop passed away this winter, needed to be up here for 2 weeks to cover time with mom, sister covered 2 weeks too but then she always did. All 3 of her kids and their beaus made it up, my son is in Shanghai so no joy there this year, no one to drive the boat and let me flail around on slalom skis! So canoeing, kayaking, sailing, biking, hiking...and blueberry pancakes, muffins, and pie...

Only problem is no wifi so rough on data rates...sad story, huh?

After Deerwood, I headed to serious hard core canoe tripping in northern Ontario at Camp Keywaydin. Worked for two years making some dough, then went back summer before senior year for 8 week Hudson Bay trip. Helped immeasurably with my wrestling that year being able to portage 9 miles through swamp...

For lax folks, Deerwood was founded by Ferris Thomsen, long time lax coach at Princeton. His son Tommy was longtime Denison lax coach. Len's kids went to Middlebury and Williams, as I recall, and were first rate players. Probably more...

Man I regret not going.... broke up after being home for 1 week.... spent summer mopping floors and cleaning toilets at a department store from 6:00 am to 10:00 am and was subject to a daily search/pat down when I clocked out..... It sucked....Learned some lifelong lessons

oops!

[Typical Lax Dad]

i agree with all.

lake sunapee?

MDLax is more of a Squam kind of guy....

Correct, "On Golden Pond".
Nothing against Sunapee.

6 couples coming this weekend, Gilman classmates, for a night on Squam and then over to Winnepesaukee for a night at a buddy's home there. Latter went to Dartmouth with me and my wife, played baseball. Lives in Dallas. Another went to Duke an played baseball there, lives in N. Carolina. Two others were both All-American lacrosse players at Princeton, Baltimore and Boston; last played lax at Cornell lives in DC. The first night at the Cornell guy's home overlooking Squam, unbelievable view, converted barn home. Gonna be fun.

Camp Deerwood is on Squam lake. I had a chance to counsel there one Summer but chose a girl...

Ahh girls...

Spent 2 middle school summers at Deerwood, which is how parents discovered Squam.
Now 42 years on the lake as renters for month of August. Wife and I generally made it for one week.
With Pop passed away this winter, needed to be up here for 2 weeks to cover time with mom, sister covered 2 weeks too but then she always did. All 3 of her kids and their beaus made it up, my son is in Shanghai so no joy there this year, no one to drive the boat and let me flail around on slalom skis! So canoeing, kayaking, sailing, biking, hiking...and blueberry pancakes, muffins, and pie...

Only problem is no wifi so rough on data rates...sad story, huh?

After Deerwood, I headed to serious hard core canoe tripping in northern Ontario at Camp Keywaydin. Worked for two years making some dough, then went back summer before senior year for 8 week Hudson Bay trip. Helped immeasurably with my wrestling that year being able to portage 9 miles through swamp...

For lax folks, Deerwood was founded by Ferris Thomsen, long time lax coach at Princeton. His son Tommy was longtime Denison lax coach. Len's kids went to Middlebury and Williams, as I recall, and were first rate players. Probably more...

Man I regret not going.... broke up after being home for 1 week.... spent summer mopping floors and cleaning toilets at a department store from 6:00 am to 10:00 am and was subject to a daily search/pat down when I clocked out..... It sucked....Learned some lifelong lessons

oops!

Miserable....

[ABV 8.3%]

I am more concerned that MDlax can't drive a boat.......

[MDlaxfan76]

I am more concerned that MDlax can't drive a boat.......

I can drive just fine, but can't drive and ski simultaneously.

My dad (deceased this year) or son or sister all drove the boat (or me for the kids or sis, who's a quite fine skier). Wife in a pinch.
None of them here this week. 84 yr old Mom really can't.

Robotics have not yet come to small craft on Squam!