From: Dutch <>
Subject: Re: A weak 'President'
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id a9mr12264752qkc.41.1520298379064;
Mon, 05 Mar 2018 17:06:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: A weak President
References: <>
From: Dutch <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Lines: 67
Message-ID: <eQlnC.36280$VM2.21223@fx01.iad>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 01:06:18 UTC
Organization: UsenetServer -
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 17:06:17 -0800
X-Received-Bytes: 4583
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2340182918
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Original-Bytes: 4521
Print Article
Forward Article
On 3/5/2018 2:10 PM, da pickle wrote:
> On 3/5/2018 2:47 PM, Dutch wrote:
>> On 3/5/2018 12:01 PM, da pickle wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2018 1:13 PM, risky biz wrote:
>>>> On Monday, March 5, 2018 at 6:13:30 AM UTC-8, da pickle wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2018 2:43 PM, Dutch wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2018 4:57 AM, da pickle wrote:
>>>>>>> The whole subject of the thread is an article about John Brennan
>>>>>> The subject is not *about* John Brennan, that is just another
>>>>>> transparent diversion. The subject is the instability of the current
>>>>>> POTUS, a topic raised by Nicolle Wallace in an interview with John 
>>>>>> Brennan.
>>>>> Is there some other opinion about the President presented in the 
>>>>> article
>>>>> other than the opinion of John Brennan?
>>>>>> The telling thing here is that you cannot factually refute a single
>>>>>> point Brennan makes in the interview, so you choose to attack his
>>>>>> credibility. I add numerous points which further illustrate the
>>>>>> instability and unsuitability of this president and you attack my
>>>>>> credibility. When are you going to wake up and realize that it is the
>>>>>> credibility of your president that matters? When are you going to
>>>>>> finally realize that this presidency constitutes a global crisis?
>>>>> Brennan states his opinion.  You apparently agree with his opinion
>>>>> without more.  You have not supported your opinion with anything more
>>>>> than your opinion and neither has he.  Everyone knows your opinion.
>>>> You can safely bet that most Americans recognize John Brennan's 
>>>> description of Donald Trump as an accurate description of the 
>>>> behavior they can see themselves. Your brilliant idea that this 
>>>> should be 'balanced' by the input of devotees of Donald Trump who 
>>>> choose to ignore his behavior is just silly.
>>>>> You may think your opinion is the only opinion worth considering, but
>>>>> you could be wrong.
>>>>> You are so biased that you cannot see your own bias any more.
>>>>> You are the reflection of those that hated Obama so much that they 
>>>>> could
>>>>> not see even one thing about his presidency that was worthwhile.
>>> Your shouted opinion of your opinion does not raise it's validity at 
>>> all.  People of faith are always quite sure of their beliefs.
>> Your attempt to reduce the issue down to a matter of political 
>> opinions is desperate and unconvincing. A list of startling words and 
>> actions by this president in just the past few days has been presented 
>> and you have failed to explain or rationalize a single one of them. 
>> You can't, they are all inexplicable. All you're doing is throwing up 
>> a smokescreen.
> Actions speak louder than words ... you have only words ... your faith 
> in your words is commendable.

Spare me the platitudes. Pick just one of the recent controversies 
coming out of this Whitehouse and we can discuss it rationally. We could 
start with the president's suggestion that due process be suspended when 
it comes to firearms, or the tariffs, or the military parade, there are 
plenty to pick from. Let's get real.