Analysis | ‘You’re not thinking. You never do,’ Trump tells a female reporter

MAJ Bryan Zeski - Will your children grow up to be like him? Do you have so little influence on developing their character? My children are already grown and are nothing like him. My grandchildren show no inclination to be anything like him or the women who throw themselves at celebrities. And Jackson wasn't vilified. It was his wife that they went after. The only President who was similarly vilified by the Democrats was Lincoln. There were even mobs waiting in Baltimore to lynch him as he traveled to Washington for his inauguration. The diary of a Confederate chaplain I read typified the attitude. He would write for a couple of pages about the hardships of war until he remembered that "...it is that son of Satan, Abraham Lincoln, who is responsible for this suffering..." (You could almost feel his anger in the pen strokes) And you'll have to show me your statistical data to prove that 90% of the vilification is in response to things that President Trump has done or said. I think you're engaging in hyperbole unless, of course, you agree with their assessments. Yes, they are vilifying him in response to his mere presence in the Oval Office, and the air he breathes, and his policies. So in that respect, I might agree with you, but I see all that as righteous indignation bred of hatred and dismay that their progressive Leftist agenda has taken a big hit since 11/2018. But that is misplaced anger. They should be vilifying us, We the People who elected him. It may be a "shit show" to you, but to me, it's pure Ziegfeld Follies and the fools are those complaining the loudest.

CPT Jack Durish - Oh god no they won't. *I* absolutely have influence over how they grow and develop. And they do have character and morals and independence and compassion. But, looking around, I see a LOT of people who think that POTUS is a great guy, doing good things, and is someone to look up to. I shudder to think about the country if POTUS is the example of how to behave.

Don't get me wrong, I know who is to blame - and it's really not even those who voted for him (25% of the population), it's those who DIDN'T vote at all who are at fault. And I hope they change their minds and vote in the next election they get a chance to vote in.

And while I could do hours of research and study to get an exact percentage of vilification for what he's said or done, it doesn't seem necessary or worth the time. So, in the interest of fairness, I'll rephrase - 100% of the things that *I* dislike and find fault with him on are directly related to things he's said or done. I have no ill-will for him that come from outside of his own words and actions.

I honestly believe that if he just suddenly stopped talking and writing, his approval rating would skyrocket - not because of anything he'd be doing differently, but just because he wouldn't be denigrating the position he holds any more.

Yes, I do think it's a shit-show and it's not hard to point to countless events in evidence. How many people related to his administration or campaign have been convicted of crimes? How many of the "best" people he put into power positions have resigned or been forced out because of ethics issues? How many long-term allies has he offended? How many long-term enemies has he coddled and fell in love with? How many lies or mis-truths or alternative facts has he put out there, then changed, and changed again as more and more ACTUAL facts come out?

CPT Jack Durish - You mentioned that he is attacked on all sides. I actually agree with that, BUT when campaigning you publish a rivals phone number (Graham), attack another's wife based on her looks (Cruz), insult a mans father (Cruz who has noting to do with nothing), disrespects the congressional leaders of his own party (Ryan and McConnell), where in there is the personal accountability? Where in any of the low ball actions he took to get where he is, admittedly taken by the person who did it to say "man....that was foul, and I apologize"? There is none. When the Access Hollywood tape came out, he of course denied it, then attacked those who mentioned it was wrong...in his own party (that line is rather long). So you expect his "fellow" Republicans to toe a supportive line with what he's openly done to them then, now? It's long been said he's not a Republican in the traditional sense of being a conservative. Even Regan's son said his father wouldn't consider him a true Republican or have anything to do with him. I think the son knows his father better than anyone else that's not blood related. You cannot blame the Democrats on that either. That again is coming from members of his own party. Cruz is a special kind of stupid being he took some really bad lumps from Trump, and now that Beto is within spitting distance of unseating him, is asking the man who literally disrespected his family to stump for him to keep his seat. He couldn't even get the Republican version of the Kennedy's to help him. Bush Jr. called him scum (which isn't far from the truth).

Accomplished more than what President before him? When signing EO's is the measuring stick for accomplishments, then yes he has done more than any previous President. Redoing existing laws or treaties is kinda a non starter for any President being they take credit for minions work (how it goes), but the new USMCA is just NAFTA 2.0 enacting items the previous administration had begun working on. He has successfully stayed out of the WH more than any other President short of when the WH hadn't been burned to the ground, or being rebuilt. I know the reply to my statement will have the required "I don't like Trump, never have never will". But none of what I'm saying is opinion based. These are all things he's actually done himself, and they can be found in three minutes of Googling. You support him, and in the end for you, THAT is what's important. In the end, next month will set the tone for the next two years. If just one chamber is lost, it's Lame Duck time. If both are lost, better begin looking for your Presidential library location now. Should he run again (which he should), and is beaten by a actual Republican or a Democrat, all the mess he undid from Obama and Bush Jr is about to be undone by either one of the future Presidents if they win. Trump accomplishing more than any previous President is also subjective. I'm going to post sites that both support him (or not) with his first 100 days, and farther on. But again it's subjective, and while bragging on ones self helps the person believe what is being said, it's not really up to the President or any other past or future. I'm posting these to be fair. It's up to the reader what they take out of this.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/lets-take-a-look-at-fox-and-friends-odd-list-of-trump-accomplishments-shall-we/?utm_term=.07b31394e4a5
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trumps-500-days-american-greatness/
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/6/giving-trumps-accomplishments-their-due/
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/03/20/comparing-trump-to-the-greatest-and-the-most-polarizing-presidents-in-u-s-history/
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-first-100-days-how-compare-obama-bush-clinton-2017-4

SSG Warren Swan - Although I do not draw the same conclusions as you, largely because I see most of what he has done as necessary (unfortunately so), I respect the time and effort you have put into your posting and the rational rather than blind ideological reflex, that it represents.

Great ears! Great interest in our problems! MSgt (Join to see)

If that's the case, why would she ask what he said? And regardless, do you find his comment to be appropriate?

MAJ Bryan Zeski - But there in lies the problem. The media took his short comment of Oh, you're not thinking and ran with it. MSgt (Join to see) is absolutely correct in that she made the comment first. So, this is just another attempt at the media to throw another jab at him. I would say that over half of his tirades are directly attributed to something somebody has said to him and he's tired of it. Just like Judge Kavanaugh, you can only take so much before you fire back. You may not agree with it but put yourself in their shoes. I cannot say that I would act the same way because I haven't been put into that situation.

She should have gone off on him about being rude and a few other choice words.

MAJ Bryan Zeski - But why? If someone looses their professionalism and you decide to join in to "save your pride", you could easily be making the situation worse, and it won't be just you who pays for it. He controls who is in that room with his Press Office. Take away the creds from one who acts up, and give it to another from the same station who knows how to "act right". It doesn't solve the problem and really can make it worse on the one who isn't in there anymore.

She (to me) did the right thing, and the news outlet did the right thing by publishing it. This way she's protected, and shielded from anything while the outlet takes on the brunt of the "anger" for a mistake that didn't have to happen.

SSG Warren Swan - Yeah, I thought through that too. And I'm not sure who she works for, but I can guarantee that if she had gone off on him, as he deserved, she'd be famous for a few days - and, being the savvy professional she is, she could probably work that rocket ship into another, better job somewhere. I admit, it would be a risk, but definitely something to consider.

And yes, you're probably right that she did the "right" thing. She did the "traditionally" right thing. I just fear that we're going to end up with a press corps that is shamed and abused by the President and cowtows to his whims so they can stay in those seats. I mean, it's working great in other countries like Russia, and North Korea - those press corps adore their leaders! And, didn't POTUS just recently talk about how well he and KJU got along and how they "fell in love"? KJU apparently even writes him beautiful letters.

MAJ Bryan Zeski - Sir "I just fear that we're going to end up with a press corps that is shamed and abused by the President and cowtows to his whims so they can stay in those seats". Too late for that. While there have been moments of solidarity with the WH Press Corps (think when he banned CNN reporters), when you purposely pick only those who you "like" to be able to get answers from you, that fear of yours is already in place. When your sole justification for answering someone is based off who they report for, have they been "fair" to you (aka refused to say you've ever done anything wrong), it's already in place. You have a President now who won't go on any other news outlet besides Fox. He knows after the Lester Holt screwup that he'll be hammered hard on things he's done or is doing any other way. He also cannot "stick to the script" due to his ego and penchant for bragging about himself. Fox especially Hannity will take everything no matter how wrong it is, spin it while you watch the show and justify it. Note also how he and his supporters a year later NOW want to say that Lester Holt interview isn't complete because it supposedly edits wasteful parts for time? They posted the entire interview, and there was really noting taken out that changed his answers. Run back to Hannity then.

Bush and Obama both had their "favorite" news outlets, but both took reporters questions in the briefings both gave personally in there. Neither denied a reporters question based of gender, and both took some hellacious stupid questions and either gave the reporter the WTF look, answered the question, or skipped it altogether. But the reporters all had equal chance at asking. Neither President called them the "enemy" either. They saw them as professionals doing a job that in some cases caused them to ask "gotcha" questions. It's part of the job.