Okay, for all you subscribers that torch Bari when she invites a guest to publish who you may not agree with, this column is why I value CS as much as I do. Brilliant interview.
I agreed with half his points and disagreed with the other. Trump was something totally foreign to DC, and Bill Barr. He was a horrible figurehead (the opposite o…
Okay, for all you subscribers that torch Bari when she invites a guest to publish who you may not agree with, this column is why I value CS as much as I do. Brilliant interview.
I agreed with half his points and disagreed with the other. Trump was something totally foreign to DC, and Bill Barr. He was a horrible figurehead (the opposite of Obama and JFK), but was, by far imho, the best CEO of the US (the opposite of Obama and JFK) I've ever experienced.
He took on problems that have been metastasizing in our federal government for decades, and didn't give a shit about the political fallout. When I read Barr's comment, he pretty much says that the policies were good, but his diplomacy was not. In my career I learned to separate personality from performance. Many in this country can't do that.
I also believe that he, and some in his circle believed that there was fraud in the 2020 election. I believe it too, but it would be impossible to prove. I don't think that the election was stolen, but I believe that if all of the states used the same election laws in place during the 2016 election, Trump would have won.
Anyway, Thank you Bari for this wonderful interview.
I too enjoyed the interview but I respect and generally agree with Barr. And I agree with all you said above but with one critical difference. I'll support Trump if it is my only republican choice but DeSantis is a better option.
I sympathize with the fear and anger Trump feels, we are absolutely in a battle for the soul and preservation of the America I want to my kids to live in. And if we do not stand up for it against this neo marxist orthodoxy that the Democrat Party has devolved into, the country will likely degenerate into a hard left, fascist state with excesses that will likely cause it to self-destruct and take down the rest of the somewhat free world with it.
Here's my point of difference, he doesn't listen to the people he himself chose to surround himself with. It is not, oh they are Rino's or they are from the swamp, it is that he wants to rule and not lead. We need someone with his toughness but also who has enough self-control and wisdom to lead us out of the abyss we are falling into. The problem is so large, so complex, so intractable, that only a strong leader, who knows how to listen to, and follow good advice when he gets it will be successful. There will be hard to explain, new ways of approaching the problem, that will need both a hard and a soft touch. I think DeSantis' legislative work is a good example of that. If you haven't read it, read the Anti-Woke ACT here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/7/BillText/er/PDF
I love DeSantis as well, but the big money donors are already 'giving'. Trump belongs to nobody and that is precisely why he was ousted. The "Liberal International Order" - Globalism - must proceed with the decline of America.
I too would prefer DeSantis, but the Mar-a-Lago raid pretty much makes this Trump's nomination if he wants it. The cynic in me wonders if that was the intention as the left fears DeSantis more than Trump in 24.
An excellent interview, and professionally done. It's the type of piece we'd have seen in the Washington Post or New York Times back when they were actual news organizations rather than adjuncts of a political party.
So happy to be supporting Bari's journalism instead of those other outfits. I'll be forwarding this article to several friends who still (inexplicably) rely on MSM sources, with a note that says, "Here's what an objective, professional interview looks like... since you don't get that sort of thing anymore from your preferred news sources."
Good post, Jon. I also agreed with half of Barr's points, and disagreed with the rest. Which points I disagreed with might be different with yours, since I think we view Trump differently from each other - but your main point of this interview being brilliant I totally agree with. It's frank, filled with nuance and the questions were for the most part direct and concise, with Barr responding in kind.
I think the interview is in itself newsworthy.
The performance/personality connection is an interesting one. In my mind Trump never mastered the personality trait of showing praise to a rival in order to gain support. If he had he would gotten quite a few Democrats on his side early on, especially when he wanted to put through an infrastructure bill, among other things. He was just too interested in pleasing his base.
I think Trump has too much of an ego to throw any accolades to any possible opponent - and that's where personality could affect performance.
I'd be curious what half You disagreed with, Sir Lee. I'd hafta reread it after Your reply (if any, no NEED).
I didn't find much to disagree with. In fact, I believe I'm vindicated by what he said. He said a lotta things I've *been* saying all along. So, no, I didn't find much to disagree with.
There is a lot to unpack in that interview, that's for sure. But on just two points of his I'll comment on. He supports capital punishment, and I do not. Too many innocent people have been found on death row.
And he intertwines the discipline of a religious life with limited government as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution - which I never read anywhere in any history book (and I've read a few..). In any event it's a not a view I subscribe to. You can be all for limited government and be an atheist..
Capital punishment is a tough issue. I've gone back and forth on it over the decades.
Yeah, You can be for limited government and still be an Atheist. But look at The Federalist Papers for the quote about Religion being necessary. He (Madison? Hamilton?) didn't say it was necessary for a limited goverment. He said it was necessary for a Democracy like they put together in the Constitution to function properly.
The Federalist Papers - read too long ago for me to remember, but well worth another look..
More proof, perhaps, that the Constitution is merely a product of its time, albeit an enlightened one, but based on the values and monoculture of that era, and not entirely flexible enough to encompass what our society has become, and will be.
Well, long day done. But before that, we could not possibly disagree more than on this point.
I think You're taking the view that the Constitution is outmoded because now us Atheists now much more now. (Granted, I'm only 50% Fundamentalist Atheist.) That we don't need Religion, and that actually gets in the way. Mebbe I'm misinterpreting Your views, so there is that.
But the point is that the Constitution is flexible, and open to interpretation. There's nothing that I can see that would be better than that. In fact, a whole lotta countries to our Constitution in mind when they developed theirs. I don't think that's any accident.
Longer discussion required, because that's a *very* deep difference we have.
I've been at the keyboard probably 12 hours (with a couple short breaks) and I'm played, Sir Lee. Mebbe tomorrow. Mebbe not. Have a good 'un.
So in looking back on what I wrote, I can see that I was inarticulate. The Constitution is the foundation of the governing principles of this country. And they are sound. You and I are in agreement here.
I guess what I wanted to say that we haven't had an amendment to the document in almost fifty years. The Constitution was open to amendments for most of our history, as leaders and then citizens realized that changes or additions were needed.
As our society polarizes to the point where Americans may not even speak to one another anymore because of political differences, our chances of modifying our founding papers are slim to none.
But on this, we couldn't agree more. I think we may not agree on precisely *what* changes we'd like to see, but we would both like to see changes in the fundamental structure of government.
There are actually at least a couple of competing ideas about calling a "Convention of States" (that's the name of one group) to take an alternate means of updating the docs. A method that bypasses congress. There's a few idjits who wanna total rewrite. Can only hope that doesn't gain traction, myself.
Just offering a different perspective... Trump was always a gentleman to his opponents. Until they attacked and he punched back which is a first since Newt or Reagan. The media clearly attacked him at all times and he simply pushed back instead of taking their shyte. The thing that kills me is that he was willing to work with democrats, say, on immigration; "I will grant amnesty for 2M illegals, but I want a border wall." They emphatically said no and shut down the government. The 2M number is what they had talked about for years and then? No.
Another was McCain who actually campaigned on dismantling Ocare in 2018 and then abruptly thumbed down at the moment of repeal. All to spite Trump after telling voters he would do it.
When you are not dealing with reputable people, well, Trump was right to get nasty. I work with some executives who make Trump look humble; that is who they are: HIGHLY competitive, ladies and gentlemen until the other side gets nasty, very successful and competent, and treat others as professionals - until their adversary goes dark.
This is the real Trump and the rest in leadership at the federal government, including Barr, are incompetent at other than self preservation. Remember, Barr was AG when Ruby Ridge went down and an innocent mother was shot in the face and a 14 yr old boy was shot in the back by his employees.
I'm not sure even Barr was against Trump per se, he just hated him blasting everything out via Twitter.
Trump could have have given a five minute press conference every day, not tweeted and probably won going away. (as long as he didn't get too crazy in the 5 minutes)
You may not agree. Likely won't. I think that's just a lame excuse for Trump's outrageous behavior on Twitter. And I believe the *main* reason Trump tweeted like he did was simply because he was narcissistic. Granted, I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think it takes one to see that.
I don't Twitter much but I did hear that his aides were doing some of the tweets. That said, Trump seemed to disrespect the office of president while at the same time loving the country and doing good for it. Sort of like a bi-polar effect.
"When I read Barr's comment, he pretty much says that the policies were good, but his diplomacy was not. In my career I learned to separate personality from performance. Many in this country can't do that."
You should learn to do it, Jon, IMO.
The policies are the shallow part of governing. The leading is the main thing, and Trump was one-a the worst leaders this country has ever seen.
So that balances out. And no. Anyone that thinks he's ONE-A THE BEST OF ALL TIME?
It balances out, but on balance, not in his favor. Jan 6 he showed his true colors. Skunk.
I have tried yo refrain from comments antagonistic to yours on this article. I understand your prejudice and am not likely to reach you with reason, but for heaven's sake man you said formulation of policy is the easy part, that "leadership" is the hard part. History is replete with charismatic leaders who were awful - Hitler, Jim Jomes, that odious little Dr. Fauci.
Lynne - agree. For us out here in society-land what matters is the policies instituted that affect us. For that I like Trump, also I personally thought he was funny.
I'd say most of the hatred for him has nothing to do with what he actually did but is Dems venomous talking points - racist nazi fascist etc. thrown at him like childish schoolyard taunts.
Yeah, I noticed that. I appreciate it. But I'm not at *all* sure *You're* amenable to reason.
I'm not saying Trump *wasn't* charismatic. And Your examples make my point about the results.
I wouldn't even require Trump to be muchuva leader if he could-a only acted like an *adult.* It wasn't in him. Character of slime mold, and all that. Yeah, that's the hard part in most people's lives. Living up to principles. Some have trouble more than others, Yours one-a the least troubles of all.
I do not think Trump was charismatic. Far from it. I think Barr's analysis of Trump was spot on. All of it. But, like Barr, I think Trump was very much needed and his policies were very good for the country. Had Trump been afforded a modicum.of respect, which the office deserves, by the Dems or the MSM he might well have had an opportunity to be more "Presidential". But he was not afforded that opportunity from day one (remember that odious Comey did not even eant to brief him)and so he tweeted. BFD. I think he demonstrated how meaningless the press really is. And at some level I think this demonstrates the old substance or appearance dilemma. I equate Trump's policies with substance and I will take that over appearance any day.
I dunno what BFD means. And I agree with Barr too. I guess we interpret it differently.
No, it's not a question of substance or appearance. Or rather, You've got the two mixed up.
The *substance* was him not turning power over. The appearance was his charisma. That's how he duped You all into thinking he was great because of his policies. He didn't get respect, because he didn't deserve it, for the most part.
But, yeah, the office deserves some. He never made any effort to assume the office, as an adult would, was the problem.
So. Yeah, I take substance over appearance every day. Trump had no substance, is the fact of the matter. Was he needed at that time? He served a useful purpose. I think I learned a lot about the political/economic/social situation from him. That's history.
Today, I don't see why You can't see what I'm "saying" here.
Wrong choice of words. But that's still not a logical argument against what I say.
You do not see Trump for what he *is.* For *whatever* reason.
And, as far as I can tell, You can't make a sufficient argument in his favor to merit voting for him ever again. Because I state as a *fact* that he's unfit to hold the office of President.
You can skate outta here because of a wrong choice of words, true. But I don't think You can answer me with a logical argument, and that's why You won't respond further.
Point is, his unpredictability was like a lotta his actions. Totally UNcontrolled. He was a "high-flyin, I'm number one, and everybody get outta my WAY, kind-a guy. Despite the number of bankruptcies, I assume he was successful. But, see? BILLIONAIRES can get away with a lotta that kind-a *crap* that most people learn to stay clear from.
In "The Leader of the Free World?" That kind-a BILLIONAIRE crap is a DISadvantage.
That is precisy why Barr and the rest of the federal barista's hated him. He was uncontrollable and that is the way it should be. Same as Reagan and Nixon; they successfully took Nixon and Trump out using the FBI.
Yeah, the President should be his own man. But first, he has to be a *man.* Trump was a boy trying to do a man's job.
He was uncontrollable in his thinking and speaking. He was his own worst enemy. That's why he lost the election. If it hadn't been for that, even with the pandemic, he probably would-a won.
China, NoKo, Iran and Russia respected Trump? I'm not so certain.
Now Trump respected *them* no doubt. All the totalitarians. But, IMO, Xi played Trump for a fool, for example, when the Wuhan virus came out. Xi "respectfully" declined to cooperate with Trump right at the beginning. "No," and that was the end of the call.
All our politicians any more are millionaires on their way to becoming billionaires, whether from business or mysteriously 'made' during their time in office. Bartender and economic genius AOC is now reportedly 'worth' $29m
Naw, it takes a certain kind-a ruthlessness to become a Billionaire.
Granted, a *lotta* the politicians these days have that kind-a ruthlessness. But I don't think that's most-a them. But, then, ICBW about that. Been wrong before a time or two. ;-)
I can only say what I'm *likely* to do. I don't have a crystal ball to say what I *will* do for certain, it being so far down the road.
I've posted this many times. If it's Biden/Trump, I'll sit it out. Why should I condone either one-a them? I wouldn't bother voting for a third party. To me, that's just a vain gesture.
Others will do different. No problem to me, right?
Biden is as Biden has always been, mean and inconsiderate to the American people. He believes he is above us all and doesn't have the sense to hide it. He's the biggest moron the White House has ever seen. He makes Bush Jr. look like Einstein.
We love Bari, not Barr. Like others here I would rather she interview someone outside the Swamp who served in the Swamp like Bob Lighthizer who almost singlehandedly saved our economy advising Trump on deregulation and lowering the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world(40%) to 21%. We are not in full recession because of these actions. Barr is essentially a nobody who lived his life around failures in government.
Bari is a good interviewer. Also I think there's a difference between simply not liking Trump and TDS, which Barr admitted does exist.
I'd like to hear Bari interview AOC. That would be a hoot - Common Sense vs abject silliness. But I doubt AOC would submit to a real interview unless maybe she could be assembling something from Ikea while they talk.
She is about to be a mom. If she is a good one, and I suspect she will be, now it will be about what her child's life depends on. Stay tuned, I expect changes will be forthcoming.
Okay, for all you subscribers that torch Bari when she invites a guest to publish who you may not agree with, this column is why I value CS as much as I do. Brilliant interview.
I agreed with half his points and disagreed with the other. Trump was something totally foreign to DC, and Bill Barr. He was a horrible figurehead (the opposite of Obama and JFK), but was, by far imho, the best CEO of the US (the opposite of Obama and JFK) I've ever experienced.
He took on problems that have been metastasizing in our federal government for decades, and didn't give a shit about the political fallout. When I read Barr's comment, he pretty much says that the policies were good, but his diplomacy was not. In my career I learned to separate personality from performance. Many in this country can't do that.
I also believe that he, and some in his circle believed that there was fraud in the 2020 election. I believe it too, but it would be impossible to prove. I don't think that the election was stolen, but I believe that if all of the states used the same election laws in place during the 2016 election, Trump would have won.
Anyway, Thank you Bari for this wonderful interview.
I too enjoyed the interview but I respect and generally agree with Barr. And I agree with all you said above but with one critical difference. I'll support Trump if it is my only republican choice but DeSantis is a better option.
I sympathize with the fear and anger Trump feels, we are absolutely in a battle for the soul and preservation of the America I want to my kids to live in. And if we do not stand up for it against this neo marxist orthodoxy that the Democrat Party has devolved into, the country will likely degenerate into a hard left, fascist state with excesses that will likely cause it to self-destruct and take down the rest of the somewhat free world with it.
Here's my point of difference, he doesn't listen to the people he himself chose to surround himself with. It is not, oh they are Rino's or they are from the swamp, it is that he wants to rule and not lead. We need someone with his toughness but also who has enough self-control and wisdom to lead us out of the abyss we are falling into. The problem is so large, so complex, so intractable, that only a strong leader, who knows how to listen to, and follow good advice when he gets it will be successful. There will be hard to explain, new ways of approaching the problem, that will need both a hard and a soft touch. I think DeSantis' legislative work is a good example of that. If you haven't read it, read the Anti-Woke ACT here: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/7/BillText/er/PDF
I love DeSantis as well, but the big money donors are already 'giving'. Trump belongs to nobody and that is precisely why he was ousted. The "Liberal International Order" - Globalism - must proceed with the decline of America.
I too would prefer DeSantis, but the Mar-a-Lago raid pretty much makes this Trump's nomination if he wants it. The cynic in me wonders if that was the intention as the left fears DeSantis more than Trump in 24.
Yeah, I wonder the same. Biden’s handlers are quite sophisticated.
and corrupt
An excellent interview, and professionally done. It's the type of piece we'd have seen in the Washington Post or New York Times back when they were actual news organizations rather than adjuncts of a political party.
So happy to be supporting Bari's journalism instead of those other outfits. I'll be forwarding this article to several friends who still (inexplicably) rely on MSM sources, with a note that says, "Here's what an objective, professional interview looks like... since you don't get that sort of thing anymore from your preferred news sources."
Good post, Jon. I also agreed with half of Barr's points, and disagreed with the rest. Which points I disagreed with might be different with yours, since I think we view Trump differently from each other - but your main point of this interview being brilliant I totally agree with. It's frank, filled with nuance and the questions were for the most part direct and concise, with Barr responding in kind.
I think the interview is in itself newsworthy.
The performance/personality connection is an interesting one. In my mind Trump never mastered the personality trait of showing praise to a rival in order to gain support. If he had he would gotten quite a few Democrats on his side early on, especially when he wanted to put through an infrastructure bill, among other things. He was just too interested in pleasing his base.
I think Trump has too much of an ego to throw any accolades to any possible opponent - and that's where personality could affect performance.
*FINALLY!* A discussion about the interview.
I'd be curious what half You disagreed with, Sir Lee. I'd hafta reread it after Your reply (if any, no NEED).
I didn't find much to disagree with. In fact, I believe I'm vindicated by what he said. He said a lotta things I've *been* saying all along. So, no, I didn't find much to disagree with.
(Per usual, TYTY. :-)
There is a lot to unpack in that interview, that's for sure. But on just two points of his I'll comment on. He supports capital punishment, and I do not. Too many innocent people have been found on death row.
And he intertwines the discipline of a religious life with limited government as envisioned by the framers of the Constitution - which I never read anywhere in any history book (and I've read a few..). In any event it's a not a view I subscribe to. You can be all for limited government and be an atheist..
Capital punishment is a tough issue. I've gone back and forth on it over the decades.
Yeah, You can be for limited government and still be an Atheist. But look at The Federalist Papers for the quote about Religion being necessary. He (Madison? Hamilton?) didn't say it was necessary for a limited goverment. He said it was necessary for a Democracy like they put together in the Constitution to function properly.
I'm lately starting to wonder if he wasn't right.
The Federalist Papers - read too long ago for me to remember, but well worth another look..
More proof, perhaps, that the Constitution is merely a product of its time, albeit an enlightened one, but based on the values and monoculture of that era, and not entirely flexible enough to encompass what our society has become, and will be.
Well, long day done. But before that, we could not possibly disagree more than on this point.
I think You're taking the view that the Constitution is outmoded because now us Atheists now much more now. (Granted, I'm only 50% Fundamentalist Atheist.) That we don't need Religion, and that actually gets in the way. Mebbe I'm misinterpreting Your views, so there is that.
But the point is that the Constitution is flexible, and open to interpretation. There's nothing that I can see that would be better than that. In fact, a whole lotta countries to our Constitution in mind when they developed theirs. I don't think that's any accident.
Longer discussion required, because that's a *very* deep difference we have.
I've been at the keyboard probably 12 hours (with a couple short breaks) and I'm played, Sir Lee. Mebbe tomorrow. Mebbe not. Have a good 'un.
A good discussion awaits! Enjoy the rest of the day, jt.
I'm opening up a beer..
:)
:-)
So in looking back on what I wrote, I can see that I was inarticulate. The Constitution is the foundation of the governing principles of this country. And they are sound. You and I are in agreement here.
I guess what I wanted to say that we haven't had an amendment to the document in almost fifty years. The Constitution was open to amendments for most of our history, as leaders and then citizens realized that changes or additions were needed.
As our society polarizes to the point where Americans may not even speak to one another anymore because of political differences, our chances of modifying our founding papers are slim to none.
And I believe we need to.
I forget the thread we were on, Sir Lee.
But on this, we couldn't agree more. I think we may not agree on precisely *what* changes we'd like to see, but we would both like to see changes in the fundamental structure of government.
There are actually at least a couple of competing ideas about calling a "Convention of States" (that's the name of one group) to take an alternate means of updating the docs. A method that bypasses congress. There's a few idjits who wanna total rewrite. Can only hope that doesn't gain traction, myself.
TYTY for reply.
Just offering a different perspective... Trump was always a gentleman to his opponents. Until they attacked and he punched back which is a first since Newt or Reagan. The media clearly attacked him at all times and he simply pushed back instead of taking their shyte. The thing that kills me is that he was willing to work with democrats, say, on immigration; "I will grant amnesty for 2M illegals, but I want a border wall." They emphatically said no and shut down the government. The 2M number is what they had talked about for years and then? No.
Another was McCain who actually campaigned on dismantling Ocare in 2018 and then abruptly thumbed down at the moment of repeal. All to spite Trump after telling voters he would do it.
When you are not dealing with reputable people, well, Trump was right to get nasty. I work with some executives who make Trump look humble; that is who they are: HIGHLY competitive, ladies and gentlemen until the other side gets nasty, very successful and competent, and treat others as professionals - until their adversary goes dark.
This is the real Trump and the rest in leadership at the federal government, including Barr, are incompetent at other than self preservation. Remember, Barr was AG when Ruby Ridge went down and an innocent mother was shot in the face and a 14 yr old boy was shot in the back by his employees.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/08/19/the-day-i-went-head-to-head-with-donald-trump/#624a2a035570
If you consider lecturing about skin color (Obama) day in and day out the trait of a great figurehead.
I'm not sure even Barr was against Trump per se, he just hated him blasting everything out via Twitter.
Trump could have have given a five minute press conference every day, not tweeted and probably won going away. (as long as he didn't get too crazy in the 5 minutes)
He blasted out on Twitter precisely because the likes of Barr did not follow orders and leaked their narratives to their favorite rag.
Oh, and he gave pressers every.single.day.
And in fairness Trump tweeted to get around the MSM.
Agreed!
You may not agree. Likely won't. I think that's just a lame excuse for Trump's outrageous behavior on Twitter. And I believe the *main* reason Trump tweeted like he did was simply because he was narcissistic. Granted, I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think it takes one to see that.
I don't Twitter much but I did hear that his aides were doing some of the tweets. That said, Trump seemed to disrespect the office of president while at the same time loving the country and doing good for it. Sort of like a bi-polar effect.
He definitely had his highs and lows, that's fer sure, Ma'am...
Obama was a figurehead of guilt who promoted systemic racism and began the divisive tribalism we now face.
Agreed
"When I read Barr's comment, he pretty much says that the policies were good, but his diplomacy was not. In my career I learned to separate personality from performance. Many in this country can't do that."
You should learn to do it, Jon, IMO.
The policies are the shallow part of governing. The leading is the main thing, and Trump was one-a the worst leaders this country has ever seen.
So that balances out. And no. Anyone that thinks he's ONE-A THE BEST OF ALL TIME?
It balances out, but on balance, not in his favor. Jan 6 he showed his true colors. Skunk.
I have tried yo refrain from comments antagonistic to yours on this article. I understand your prejudice and am not likely to reach you with reason, but for heaven's sake man you said formulation of policy is the easy part, that "leadership" is the hard part. History is replete with charismatic leaders who were awful - Hitler, Jim Jomes, that odious little Dr. Fauci.
Lynne - agree. For us out here in society-land what matters is the policies instituted that affect us. For that I like Trump, also I personally thought he was funny.
I'd say most of the hatred for him has nothing to do with what he actually did but is Dems venomous talking points - racist nazi fascist etc. thrown at him like childish schoolyard taunts.
Weeeel, here's where I hafta disagree with Ya, Ma'am.
I agree there's a lotta venomous talking points. No doubt.
But there's a lot more *wrong* with Trump that really *does* matter. And I think more wrong than there is right, IMO.
Yeah, I noticed that. I appreciate it. But I'm not at *all* sure *You're* amenable to reason.
I'm not saying Trump *wasn't* charismatic. And Your examples make my point about the results.
I wouldn't even require Trump to be muchuva leader if he could-a only acted like an *adult.* It wasn't in him. Character of slime mold, and all that. Yeah, that's the hard part in most people's lives. Living up to principles. Some have trouble more than others, Yours one-a the least troubles of all.
But Trump?
I do not think Trump was charismatic. Far from it. I think Barr's analysis of Trump was spot on. All of it. But, like Barr, I think Trump was very much needed and his policies were very good for the country. Had Trump been afforded a modicum.of respect, which the office deserves, by the Dems or the MSM he might well have had an opportunity to be more "Presidential". But he was not afforded that opportunity from day one (remember that odious Comey did not even eant to brief him)and so he tweeted. BFD. I think he demonstrated how meaningless the press really is. And at some level I think this demonstrates the old substance or appearance dilemma. I equate Trump's policies with substance and I will take that over appearance any day.
I dunno what BFD means. And I agree with Barr too. I guess we interpret it differently.
No, it's not a question of substance or appearance. Or rather, You've got the two mixed up.
The *substance* was him not turning power over. The appearance was his charisma. That's how he duped You all into thinking he was great because of his policies. He didn't get respect, because he didn't deserve it, for the most part.
But, yeah, the office deserves some. He never made any effort to assume the office, as an adult would, was the problem.
So. Yeah, I take substance over appearance every day. Trump had no substance, is the fact of the matter. Was he needed at that time? He served a useful purpose. I think I learned a lot about the political/economic/social situation from him. That's history.
Today, I don't see why You can't see what I'm "saying" here.
jt I have not been duped and I do not appreciate the insinuation. I will not respond further.
Wrong choice of words. But that's still not a logical argument against what I say.
You do not see Trump for what he *is.* For *whatever* reason.
And, as far as I can tell, You can't make a sufficient argument in his favor to merit voting for him ever again. Because I state as a *fact* that he's unfit to hold the office of President.
You can skate outta here because of a wrong choice of words, true. But I don't think You can answer me with a logical argument, and that's why You won't respond further.
Outside of the Germany, France, and Canada Trump was absolutely respected by the rest of our world's leaders, especially the Middle East.
China, NoKo, Iran and Russia and Russia respected him too, or at least took him seriously.
They respected him and his controlled unpredictability.
I'm not so sure.
Point is, his unpredictability was like a lotta his actions. Totally UNcontrolled. He was a "high-flyin, I'm number one, and everybody get outta my WAY, kind-a guy. Despite the number of bankruptcies, I assume he was successful. But, see? BILLIONAIRES can get away with a lotta that kind-a *crap* that most people learn to stay clear from.
In "The Leader of the Free World?" That kind-a BILLIONAIRE crap is a DISadvantage.
That is precisy why Barr and the rest of the federal barista's hated him. He was uncontrollable and that is the way it should be. Same as Reagan and Nixon; they successfully took Nixon and Trump out using the FBI.
You're using uncontrollable in a wrong way.
Yeah, the President should be his own man. But first, he has to be a *man.* Trump was a boy trying to do a man's job.
He was uncontrollable in his thinking and speaking. He was his own worst enemy. That's why he lost the election. If it hadn't been for that, even with the pandemic, he probably would-a won.
His life's work shows the opposite, buddy. Have a good day.
Sure thing. Hope Your daughter continues to do well.
They always admit election interference after the fact... Keep it in mind.
https://www.revolver.news/2022/08/wow-zuckerberg-admits-facebook-censored-hunter-biden-laptop-story-at-request-of-fbi/
Thanks for your thoughts!
China, NoKo, Iran and Russia respected Trump? I'm not so certain.
Now Trump respected *them* no doubt. All the totalitarians. But, IMO, Xi played Trump for a fool, for example, when the Wuhan virus came out. Xi "respectfully" declined to cooperate with Trump right at the beginning. "No," and that was the end of the call.
The rest is history, as "they" say.
All our politicians any more are millionaires on their way to becoming billionaires, whether from business or mysteriously 'made' during their time in office. Bartender and economic genius AOC is now reportedly 'worth' $29m
Naw, it takes a certain kind-a ruthlessness to become a Billionaire.
Granted, a *lotta* the politicians these days have that kind-a ruthlessness. But I don't think that's most-a them. But, then, ICBW about that. Been wrong before a time or two. ;-)
Sorry, but Biden being Biden doesn't in any way justify what Trump did and *is.*
jt - disagree on that. When our only viable choice is the lesser of two evils then comparing them is all we have and so yes, is justified.
Yeah, we disagree on that.
Me? I don't see any *lesser* of two evils when both are down in the same gutter.
You can always vote for whoever You wanna, of course. But it'd take a "miracle" for me to vote for either of 'em.
Then what do we do? We’re going to get stuck with one or the other
I can only say what I'm *likely* to do. I don't have a crystal ball to say what I *will* do for certain, it being so far down the road.
I've posted this many times. If it's Biden/Trump, I'll sit it out. Why should I condone either one-a them? I wouldn't bother voting for a third party. To me, that's just a vain gesture.
Others will do different. No problem to me, right?
You're describing the very real problem of "the evil of two lessers." That's where we are right now.
Biden is as Biden has always been, mean and inconsiderate to the American people. He believes he is above us all and doesn't have the sense to hide it. He's the biggest moron the White House has ever seen. He makes Bush Jr. look like Einstein.
that is no easy task ! making Bush look like Einstein
lol Lynne! Barr's comment that the Bush baby was the greatest leader just about made me choke.
We love Bari, not Barr. Like others here I would rather she interview someone outside the Swamp who served in the Swamp like Bob Lighthizer who almost singlehandedly saved our economy advising Trump on deregulation and lowering the corporate tax rate from the highest in the world(40%) to 21%. We are not in full recession because of these actions. Barr is essentially a nobody who lived his life around failures in government.
Victor Davis Hanson would be fun.
Victor is brilliant.
Outstanding choice! Lord Conrad Black would be another.
He is also very good
Bari is a good interviewer. Also I think there's a difference between simply not liking Trump and TDS, which Barr admitted does exist.
I'd like to hear Bari interview AOC. That would be a hoot - Common Sense vs abject silliness. But I doubt AOC would submit to a real interview unless maybe she could be assembling something from Ikea while they talk.
She is about to be a mom. If she is a good one, and I suspect she will be, now it will be about what her child's life depends on. Stay tuned, I expect changes will be forthcoming.
You can already sense a change in Nellie.
Sorry, friend. You're the RINO here.
It's not about Trump over all. It's about Rs winning a majority, right?
Barr is the RINO, it is about Trump's policies which means the middle class being included in our country instead of being raped.
Anybody can have those policies, right? IMO, *only* Trump could possibly lose the election in '24.
He could easily win if conditions stayed the same, but I would rather not find out.
Too far down the road to say "easily," but I agree.