ldrews

Any more I am not sure they would recognize a fact if they met one.

Interesting political history of the US involvement in the Paris Accord: http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/03/obamas-decisions-doomed-the-paris-climate-accord-to-failure-in-the-us-experts-say/

I understand. One of the base assumptions of many people seems to be that since the US has been the major power in the world since WW2, and has been instrumental in helping Europe regain its feet afterwards, that this is obligatory role for the US now and in the future. That the US is like a daddy that is responsible for taking care of the family, even disciplining it at times. But times have changed. The US is suffering its own problems, Europe is now robust with an economy approaching the US. As a result of the above mindset, the US has entered into a number of agreements that disadvantage the US. If one takes the attitude that the US is simply one nation among many, and is no more or no less responsible for the world condition than any other country, then to me it makes sense to get our own house in order before trying to project our values and processes onto other nations. And it seems the US has plenty to get in order: health care, education, immigration, infrastructure just to name a few.

When the media starts naming their sources then I will give them some credibility. Until then they could just as easily be making up their stories as not.

Angela Merkel doesn't yet qualify for historical. The fact that the current negotiating game taking place upsets Europeans also does not qualify ans breaking historical ties. You are engaging in hyperbole. Apparently Trump has a different world view and agenda than the liberal/left. So you reach for any meme/excuse to try to explain the difference. I think Trump simply does not agree with you viewpoint or agenda. From what I gather, he thinks the traditional approach to US foreign relationships is not working very well for the US, so he is going in a different direction. You obviously think the traditional approach if fine and that existing relationships should be maintained. But that is what elections are about.

What historical ties with Europe has he dumped? Certainly the Paris Accord is not considered historical. TPP never came into existence. We are still part of NATO. Exactly what has he dumped?

Are you of the opinion that news organizations don't falsify their reports?

Once again you mischaracterize me in order to fit your narrative. Are you always this dishonest? I am not a "law-and-order guy". I am, in fact, in favor of fewer laws. But for those laws that we do have, if someone violates them than they should be subject to the penalties associated. To the subject at hand, if the arrests are indeed unlawful, as decided by the courts, then the perpetrators should suffer the penalties. But until the courts decide, I will withhold judgment. How about you? Have you already convicted the arresting officers?

Somebody is following through on their promises: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-softbank-visionfund-launch-idUSKCN18F13T

So, what do you think he should have said? What tone should he have taken? Perhaps he should not have visited Saudi Arabia at all? Let the Saudis buy their 110 billion dollars of arms from Europe or Russia?

You would think Democrats would take note.

You are right. The actual context for her statement was the Benghazi investigation where she said: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/may/08/context-hillary-clintons-what-difference-does-it-m/

Didn't she say: "It doesn't really matter!"

And you know this how? Apparently the US is not interested in world peace either. Who has the most foreign military installations in the world? Who has the most troops deployed to foreign countries? Who has been engaged in the most wars/police actions during the last 30 years?

It is amusing how you conflate one photo-op into all executive orders. You are indeed talented. You obviously are not learning.

Trump is obviously learning how to be a politician. A photo-op with no discernible policy outcome. Imagine that!

And how well you display your lack of erudition. "kicking over the rice bowl" is not a reference to a toddler tantrum, but rather a reference to a time honored phrase indicating someone is upsetting the vested interests and putting their financial well-being at risk, a reference to the Asian focus on where the next meal is coming from, i.e. what is in their rice bowl. But then you would have had to read a lot to know that, wouldn't you?

Keep chanting! Then you won't be able to hear the encroaching conservative hordes. Remember, while Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won 20/30 states and approx. 85% of the counties in the US. In the last decade the Democrats have lost something like 1100 political positions in the states. But keep chanting. It will make you feel better.

Talk about living in fantasy! Indeed, language is how we communicate, assuming the parties involved desire to communicate. Some use language to persuade or confuse: their goal is not to communicate but to control. Some don't bother with language but simply take action, leaving the communication debate to the bystanders. Your attachment to language as only communication is naive. It appears to me that Trump uses language to persuade, disrupt, confuse his adversaries. To him, what he says is for effect, not communication as you define it.

You do seem to be dazzled by words. Probably why Trump is so confusing to you.

Are you saying that Hillary Clinton was responsible for passing the Affordable Care Act, Medicare Act, and on and on? Since when? Based on her statements about the "deplorables" I would allocate her works to a sense of "noblesse oblige". She obviously hand no empathy for the plight of the poor or working class if you were not black or latino. To me she obviously felt she was part of the privileged class and "deserved" to be president. Her refusal to give a concession speech on election night simply confirmed it. Even now she is blaming Comey for her loss without noting that if she hadn't set up an off-site mail server to begin with none of that would have happened. Trump is professing that he is trying to give the country back to the common citizens and take it away from the elites (which includes himself). His actions to date appear to me to be in line with that position. Of course, the path he chooses to do that obviously does not meet with the approval of said elites. So how many of your objections are real and how many can be attributed to his kicking over your rice bowl, challenging your preferences and beliefs in what is right and proper? Are you arguing for the benefit of the general populace for the long term, or you just focusing on the uncomfortable changes occurring to your cherished beliefs and positions? How are you any different than a rabid right wing supporter?

I disagree. I found Clintons "deplorable" remarks quite analogous to Marie Antionette's "Let them eat cake!" remark. I also think you underestimate the anger resident in the Trump supporter groups, particularly the fringe groups. Many of them seem quite prepared to launch a civil war. We will see if continued dismissal of their concerns on the basis of logic and rationality is a winning strategy. Legend has it that Alexander solved the Gordian Knot, not by unraveling it though thought, logic, and rationality, but by cleaving it with his sword. He went on to conquer much of the known world at that time.

I wonder if the French aristocracy felt the same way toward their public? They probably held to their opinions right up to the guillotine.

The education system in the US has been deteriorating for decades under the current policies. As Einstein is quoted to have said: "Doing more of the same thing and expecting a different result is a definition of insanity." The US education systems needs significant reform, not expansion.

I am not interested in a reporter trying to tell me what the "truth" is or isn't. I want the facts, not opinions. If the reporter has additional facts I would like him/her to present them and relate them to the topic under discussion. But it is sad when intelligent people like you do not demand rigor in factual reporting and begin to accept and promote opinion as "truth".