The so-called President


His VP says we are getting used to him ‘speaking his mind’. Well, yes, but there is a clear line between expressing an opinion based on facts and expressing an objection in derogatory terms (ad hominem). His latest jibe – the ‘so-called judge’ crosses that line.

This portrait catches admirably his other Donald Duck-like features.

Author: janus

I'm back......and front - in sunny Sussex-by-the-sea

58 thoughts on “The so-called President”

  1. The problem, Janus, is that you simply don’t grasp how toxic a cesspool Sub-Canadian North America actually is. It’s nothing but an overgrown vanity project with delusions of grandeur. Don’t we have problems enough in the civilised world? Why do we have to suffer the childish antics of Canada’s inadequate neighbour?

  2. I suppose I don’t want to, believing there can’t be such a man in power in 2017, can there?! As I have been at pains to tell Jazz, I am not liberal or elite or even a snob but surely………It’s like Russell Brand being PM.

  3. I don’t know what you’re getting exited about.

    Trump is a bit vulgar, he says what he thinks and uses Twitter ……… So what !!!??

    It makes a change.

    I’d rather have him than the over educated ineffectual numpties that we seem to be saddled with.

  4. Janus: The opposition are just as bad and just as political. Judicial activism on the left is a fixture of political life in the US. Whatever they can’t get accomplished through legislation is accomplished through court decisions. Whatever can’t be accomplished at an election is attempted through riots and insurrection. For example, a California congressman recently held a town meeting in his overwhelmingly conservative district. Leftists trolls turned up the meeting and drowned out the majority with their lunatic rantings and ravings. Their candidate stood no chance of winning even a majority of votes, so they try to silence the majority of voters. A flamboyant conservative speaker was invited to give a speech at a university and violent riots ensued — with people of non-leftist political persuasions suffering severe beatings.

  5. Jazz: People are openly mocking leftists and treating their supporters/enablers like the clowns they are. Their media defenders are in absolute free-fall. This is only the beginning, but we can see just how nasty this fight is going to be.

  6. Christopher, I hope you’re right ( no pun intended ) but we’ve got a very long way to go before the damage inflicted by leftists..liberals..progressives….whatever ? over generations can be undone. If indeed it can be ?

  7. Jazz: It takes years and years for great things to be created but they can be shattered overnight. One reason why so much of Eastern Europe is extremely conservative is because they’ve already suffered the cultural revolutions of the left. Arguably, they’ll never fully recover. The best thing we can hope for is that the worst is dealt with and that some new thing of merit can be created. Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” come to mind.

  8. Communism in the USSR was initiated by violence and held in place by terror. Once the latter was relaxed the whole thing collapsed and peoples’ natural conservatism began to reassert itself….it had never been irradiated because violence and terror do not achieve that; although I agree with you that countries so affected may never recover.

    In the West the left has sought to achieve its aims by infiltrating institutions, particularly schools and universities. Thus f*****g with young people’s minds. Not an easy thing to undo.

  9. jazz606
    February 5, 2017 at 9:02 am

    ‘I don’t know what you’re getting exited about.’

    A classic freudian slip, methinks! 🙂

  10. Generation after generation in Eastern Europe were indoctrinated by a Marxist educational establishment. In the West, leftists realised that Marxist economic theories were simply unusable but that they could advance their agenda using Marxian theories and tactics. They have spent generations instilling their agenda by taking control of universities and state schools. Generally speaking people eventually realise that they’ve been lied to and the undermining of trust is perhaps the most difficult thing to recover from. That said, last autumn I spoke with a woman who grew up in Communist Poland. She recalled that although everything she learnt had a Marxist bent, at least she learnt how to read and write well, she became proficient in maths and sciences and was taught a respect for discipline and self-sufficiency. This is something utterly lacking in contemporary educational systems.

  11. “…She recalled that although everything she learnt had a Marxist bent, at least she learnt how to read and write well, she became proficient in maths and sciences and was taught a respect for discipline and self-sufficiency. This is something utterly lacking in contemporary educational systems….”

    She was in effect taught to think for herself which would have offset much of the marxist bullshit.
    However what you’re saying is that in the West we get the bullshit without the education.
    During the Brexit campaign it was noticeable that not all the people on our side were elderly, uneducated, working class and we did have a fair proportion of graduates but they were mostly engineers and technical folk so I guess their critical faculties hadn’t been completely wiped out.

  12. Jazz, really! ‘We did have a fair proportion of graduates but they were mostly engineers and technical folk….. ‘ A few facts would be nice. Your slip is showing again.

  13. Jazz: You can’t dumb-down maths, sciences or engineering. It is the way it is and how one “feels” about it is irrelevant. It’s objective fact, not subjective sophistry.

    She had a relatively good education — you learnt not to cross certain lines. So long as you paid homage to the glories of socialism, you had a fair degree of freedom. One reason why many of the finest minds became scientists, mathematicians and engineers was because there was no political correctness. They had to write a preface extolling the virtues of Comrade Such-and-Such but could then carry on as they pleased. They couldn’t be attacked politically for a mathematical formula, for observations geological features, botany, chemical formulae or designing machinery.

    I was fortunate in having a conservative professor. There are a few around, but not many. Most others had to write using certain theoretic frameworks — invariably Marxian. Historical objectivity was frowned upon, if not actively discouraged. When researching papers I often had to rely on works written 50-70 years ago has most more recent “scholarship” was of such poor quality as to be unusable. Most books written within the last long decade were completely worthless as they comprised ideological rants, sometimes openly scorning historical context because it didn’t suit the agenda of the man writing the text.

  14. Well my education didn’t go very far but on my training ship our history master taught us that socialism was a cancer.

  15. Janus – You and I come from a generation where education was about the ability to learn, research the facts and most importantly to think critically. I am quite sure that you were made to play ‘devil’s advocate’ and produce arguments against what you believed. No one seems to do that anymore.

    Today’s education is all about learning what the educators think you should think – and regurgitating their theories.

    As Christopher says you can’t dumb down sciences – and, as Jazz notes, you can’t politicise training on a ship! But you can throw out inconvenient truths in history, and other such subjects, and they have been discarded left, right and centre to produce a most lop-sided view of the world. Critical thinking has been abandoned.

    “Never let a few facts stand in the way of my ideology” has been the way of all dictators, be they right or left. I may not like his style, but Trump is at least giving the left-wing dictators a taste of their own medicine.

  16. Aye weel, Janus, Yet another photograph where he looks disturbingly like my late Aunt Alexandrina – very non-smiley face, emoticon-wise.

    For the avoidance of doubt, he is not a so-called President as you assert in the title to your post. He is, rough-hew it how we may, the US President for the next 1445 days at least.

    That admitted, I agree with you that the line has, in my opinion been very definitely crossed by the bold Donald in his attack on Judge Robart.

    All that I have been able to find on t’internet so far suggests that said Judge is a credit to the judicial branch of the US system of government.

    I admire the US Constitution and the separation of Powers enshrined therein. I think that it would be a sad day for all of us if Trump were to succeed in subverting that Constitution with what I believe to be his capricious and self-obsessed ego-driven rantings.

  17. It certainly will be a sad day if the President of the United States can be prevented by some bloody judge from restricting entry into the US by people from countries deemed to be a security threat .

    IMHO jurists (on both sides of the Atlantic) are getting too big for their boots and need cutting down to size.

  18. That a president can implement restrictions isn’t the matter being debated. He can, that point is moot. What is up for judicial review is how Trump worded his executive order and how it has been implemented. The media lie through their teeth and blow things well out of proportion, but there are still points of legal concern. For example, people with indefinite leave to remain in the US had initially been blocked from entering the US. People with valid visas were told that their visas would not be honoured despite having done nothing to violate any terms. Had Trump frozen incomplete asylum applications and ordered a 90-day pause in new visa issuances the media would still have kicked up a fuss, but it wouldn’t have been nearly as damaging. The judge did not actually strike down Trump’s order, either, despite what the lying press claimed. Rather, he issued a temporary stay in order to allow both sides to submit more evidence in order to support their arguments.

  19. Hi jazz.

    Your opinion, humble or not. Fair enough.

    But, I still believe in the separation of powers and the need for Executive, Legislature or Judiciary to cut other branches down to size from time to time. Balance is, for me, good.

    And, I will never, ever, put any faith in any demagogue of any hue.

    Moving on, ‘bloody judge’? Read his record. A main stream Republican who seems to have been generally accepted as a thoroughly good egg until DT threw his latest wobbly.

    We all bring our own experience to these discussions. I beg to differ from your perception of lawyers. Most of us are, in my opinion, fair-minded people who tend to want to examine facts rather than indulging their prejudices.

    I could, of course, be mistaken in that.

  20. Boa, yes, education (at least in my own avowedly useless arts discipline!) used to be about thinking critically and clarity of expression. And in support of JM, I’ve been vey impressed by a couple of Murican profs of law who have presented their analyses of the current mess. It worries me that respected members of the judiciary can be slandered willy nilly,

  21. The Pres is now twatting on about the Patriots winning the Bowl. That’s the team that cheated not long ago, deflating the balls to favour their own players. No surprise there then.

  22. Trump was elected as President fair and square.

    The President is the person who is ultimately responsible for the security and safety of US citizens. In my book that means that he can do whatever he deems necessary to ensure that security….as long as it’s not totally outrageous….which this ban was not.

    It seems to me that the law means whatever the judges want it to mean and often they can’t even agree amongst themselves. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs when dealing with national security.

  23. Jazz, my headline akshully makes your point and exposes Trump’s idiocy in insulting a genuine judge.

    My take on the latest spat is that the Judiciary, separate from the Executive, has a duty to uphold the law as approved by the Legislature. That’s the way it is supposed to work! The Executive cannot do whatever it likes without following the rules.

    The man’s crew is out of control – even denying he wears a bath-robe despite his own PR pics over the years!

    But more importantly he claims the meeja have under-reported terrorist atrocities – which is patently untrue but which his lemming-like followers will accept as the truth.

  24. janus “…Trump’s idiocy in insulting a genuine judge….”

    What other kind of judge had you in mind ?

  25. Actually there are several terrorist attacks of which I have read in the UK papers that never surfaced in the USA media. Only the larger ones in Western Europe gain any attention here.
    How many of you read any American papers on a daily basis or watch US news? So how would you know?
    So he isn’t that far wrong on that.

  26. I watch it too. I would say they are very selective! And very left wing at the moment, more than they used to be. But I expect that we get different edited versions on different continents. I’m sure that yours is a lot more international than ours, which is totally dominated by internal US politics at the moment.

  27. CNN are the least trusted network in the US. Their international version is a rubbish imitation of BBC World News, which is also rubbish. In the last years many media companies have lost the plot. German news used to be okay, but they went mad during the “refugee crisis” and have never regained their composure — or much of their lost credibility. Trump sends the media on wild goose chases, but the reality is that his attacks on their biases and lack of credibility are not without substance.

  28. Moving on,

    …… explain why they should set aside the judgement from the Seattle court without further debate.The judges concerned are asking clear and concise questions. Said legal representative is burbling away with repeated reliance on intrusive ‘Umming’ as he tries to collect his thoughts.

    In my opinion.

    Whatever the decision, I cling to my belief that the US Constitution is, in the main, a jolly good thing.

  29. JM: Trump seems to forget that procedure matters as much as substance. In some ways he’s done brilliantly. His cabinet comprise largely solid choices — far better than his predecessor. His nominee for the US Supreme Court is as solid a choice as one could hope for. His moves to lessen the regulatory burden on businesses and reform what is one of the world’s most opaque tax codes is long overdue. The problem is that he responds petulantly when challenged and, in his first major crisis, stumbled badly. Keep in mind that the political and social climate in the US is absolutely toxic. I would go so far as to say that the US is in the throes of a largely bloodless civil war. The opposition will seek to destroy him on every single fine point they can find. This isn’t the spirited opposition of, say, Tip O’Neil or Newt Gingrich. They did what opposition parties are supposed to do, in power or out of power. Rather, this is almost SNPesque obstructionism. Unfortunately, the Government is led not by a quietly sensible Theresa May, but by an NYC-thug version of Nigel Farage.

  30. Aye right, Christopher.

    Some good cabinet picks as you say. No real problem with the POTUS Supreme Court pick either.He seems pretty sound and might, of course. prove to be another Earl Warren as the years roll by.Only time will tell.

    No real problems with the declared reforms either. Major problem with what you rightly call DT’s petulance. Interesting times ahead.

    But, with respect, the political Opposition in the US of A could never even hope to getting close to aspiring to have the honour, grievance-wise, of lacing the permanently miserable boots of the torn-faced SNP moaners whose perpetual whines continue to give serial grief to the rest of us in Caledonia.

    I still blame Alex Salmond.

    The good news, however, is that I genuinely believe that we are finally getting the bastards on the run in Scotland. Our next local elections in May will be fun.

    C’mon Ruth Davidson!

  31. Read the article Christopher – and I guess that’s just about right! As you say, procedure is as important as substance. Clearly, if one knows one will have to face scrutiny then one must be very certain that the orders are clear and will hold up under examination by those who know the laws on those matters.

    I note with interest that there is a bipartisan movement in the US Senate affirming the US-Oz friendship after Trump hung up on our PM! I suspect there might be a few more of those occurring if Trump doesn’t learn that he’s only the President of the US, subject to its laws and customs, and not the President of his companies, where he makes the law!

    JM – I concur with your analysis of the SNP – a more disgruntled and illogical bunch of loud-mouths would be hard to find, They are certainly not doing Scotland or its reputation any favours. But since the elections in May are only local elections how will that help in curbing the SNP?

  32. CT, ‘CNN are the least trusted network in the US. Their international version is a rubbish imitation of BBC World News, which is also rubbish’.

    Your analysis lacks specific cases. Uncharacteristic, if I might say so,

  33. If Trump thinks he can get his own way it’s not without reason, he got his own way all the way to the White House. No mean achievement, and who knows how much further it will take him.

    I disagree with Christopher that DT stumbled over the immigration issue, he was only trying fulfill an election promise and got stymied by bloody lawyer……..that’s how his supporters see it, and there’s a lot of mileage in that.

  34. JM: The US Democrats find any excuse to have a grievance and use all legal mechanisms to either hinder or derail the normal functions of the new Administration. Whether or not Trump’s actions are well within precedent is entirely irrelevant. Whether Trump’s cabinet appointments are capable or not is utterly irrelevant. They look for any possibility of grievance and latch onto it with ferret-like determination. They dredge up narrowly-defined past grievances and blow them out of proportion to try to score cheap political points. The US and UK are very different countries and Scotland’s politics in Scotland is a quagmire in and onto itself, but the methods used are quite similar.

    Boadicea: Congress has a long record of letting presidents know that they’re well out of order on specific foreign policy points. For example, after Carter abandoned Taiwan and gave up the USA’s best hands in dealing with Beijing Congress made it clear that presidents were bound to provide some support to Taiwan. Likewise, Congress has passed resolutions in support of alliances with Israel and the UK when presidents made blunders. That is the genius of the US system. There will always be someone able to humble the other, no part of government will wield absolute power. Should a party try, it’s terribly easy to lose control of Congress.That said, I find it difficult to fault Trump. I’d be tempted to hang up on Malscum Turnsleaze, too. I’d be terrified of drowning in the slime oozing out the telephone!

    Janus: CNN International has a lecturing, sanctimonious tone. Its coverage is very narrow and filtered through a particular ideological lens. BBC are not exactly above this, but it’s less blatant. You ask for specifics. All I can say in response to that is that there were so many times I cringed because of the tone of the coverage that I simply stopped watching it. As for CNN and being trustworthy, here’s an imperfect source:
    The link to the poll is included, but one has to read through much tedious text to get to the point.

    Jazz: Trump ran a private company. He did not have to answer to anyone. He made it work, but a private company is structured very differently. He could rule his company, he can’t rule a country. He has strict time limits and he is surrounded by snakes seeking to destroy him at the first opportunity. He has to be able to come off as the adult in the room. Trump was trying — and did fulfil — an election promise. The substance, as I said, isn’t necessarily what damaged him — it’s how he carried it out. Had he imposed a 90-day freeze on new visas from those 7 countries as well as paused the US refugee programme he’d have avoided giving his media and political enemies ammunition. When people were taken off aeroplanes and stopped at the border despite having otherwise valid paperwork, including those with indefinite leave to remain, easily-exploited spectacles were created. It seems fairly clear that more people at least somewhat sympathise with Trump’s actions than oppose them, but he could have gone about it in a far less problematic way. He also needs to be prepared to defend himself more eloquently. He’s shown the capacity to communicate effectively many times. He needs to stick to that and not lose his temper so readily.

  35. Christopher: I get that Trump ran a private company and don’t need a lecture on it.
    There is a steep learning curve not just for DT (who will be well advised) but for his adversaries. This will be the first time they’ve come up against someone like Trump, who doesn’t play by the rules and I guess that their learning curve will be a lot steeper than his.

    BTW Mrs J (ex Paisley) thinks Donald has a ‘Scottish’ face. I think she is right.

  36. Janus – Re your comment “Ah yes, his supporters. The less said about them the better……”

    At least one of our esteemed members voted for Trump – and I would say, after reading his comments, that he considered where to place his vote very carefully.

    You cannot possibly understand the dynamics of another country unless you have spent some time living in that country.

    Some 20 years a certain Pauline Hanson was elected to the House of Reps here in Australia. She was pilloried in the Press for her ‘racist’ and ‘xenophobic’ maiden Speech – which it seems that only a few, other than Bearsy and I, bothered to read. She was ridiculed because she owned a fish and chip shop and didn’t know what the word xenophobic meant. She was sent to prison, quite illegally, on electoral fraud – the verdict was eventually overturned.

    Much of what she said in 1996 was taken on board by the then Howard government.

    She has returned to politics – her message has not changed one bit. But she is a lot wiser (and has learnt what xenophobic and a lot of other polysyllabic derogatory words mean!)

    The primary vote for independents in Australia is now at a record high of 1 in 4 voters preferring Independent Representatives and Senators to those of the traditional parties.

    Don’t make the mistake that Remoaners make of dismissing all those who voted for Brexit as ignorami – many. many intelligent and educated people are sick and tired of their opinions being drowned out with ‘racist’, ‘sexist’ etc, etc and have voted for the only person, both in the USA and in Oz, willing to listen to them.

  37. Boadicea: Isn’t it, just? In September I’ll vote AfD. I don’t like them, necessarily. I think they have too many loose cannons. However, all four “mainstream” parties are exactly the same. The Greens were first co-opted by the Social Democrats and then co-opted by Merkel. They’re just as willing to enter into coalitions with the Christian Democrats as they are with the Social Democrats. The Free Democrats are like the Limp Dims. Why even boffer? They’re Labour-light without the redeeming features. I certainly won’t for die Linke. Germany’s gone to hell in a hand cart because of Merkel and years of tension are now exploding. I can’t even bring myself to read the newspaper any more. It’s so blatantly ideological that it’s insulting. Half the local paper is dedicated to pro-EU propaganda laced with ad hominem attacks against German eurosceptics and the UK or anti-US rhetoric. Naturally, it’s pathetically obvious.

    Oddly enough, what happened in Australia has happened elsewhere. The two main Swedish political parties have both appropriated policies from the Sweden Democrats because they’re the only ones that aren’t tantamount to electoral suicide. The Tories have, to a large degree, adapted many of UKIP’s policies in order to stop bleeding votes. Denmark arguably no longer has a major left-wing party as their Social Democrats are at the centre, if not to to the right of it.

  38. Christopher. I respect your comments quite simply because you have either lived in the countries that you comment on, or have, quite obviously, spent a great deal of time researching (in the old and proper sense of the word!) the politics of other countries.

    It’s interesting to know that the Senate does have ways of making it’s displeasure known – and even better to know that they have pointed out to Trump that he has just annoyed one of the US’s most faithful ‘allies’.

    I’d also be inclined to hang up on Turnbull. Nonetheless, it would seem that Turnbull did point out that the deal re our unwanted illegal immigrants was not between Obama and Turnbull – but between the US and Oz… a small but important difference.

    Trump may well dismiss Oz as a ‘small country’ of no relevance in terms of population to the ‘Great US’, But he might also discover that many of us don’t like the fact that our main parties stick their hands up screaming “Me too. Me too'” every time America wants allies in their latest wars, It may be that our independent parties might just say, for the first time, “Not me”… well I, for one, sincerely hope they do. And, for all that I’ll be English for ever, I’m also Oz – and I would hope that we would also say that to the UK as well.

  39. What concerns me is that demagogues like Trump take advantage of the less thoughtful electorate by peddling various shades of prejudice without reference to facts.

  40. Boadicea: The problem with Trump’s antics is that we, as peasants in the great scheme of things, are too unimportant to be obliged to follow rules of diplomatic protocol. Someone who willingly fights for high office has to accept the responsibilities that come along with it — including the oft absurd rules of diplomacy.

    One thing that’s left me amused and bemused in equal measure is that Trump is attacked for recklessly abandoning US military responsibilities AND being a war monger at the same time. Trump has argued that the US cannot afford to involve itself in all the world’s problems — and that the US cannot be expected to provide indefinite and unlimited military support to countries that really ought to be capable of sorting out their own defence affairs. He was speaking about Europe specifically. It is a fair point. All NATO members are obliged to spend at least 2pc of their GDP on defence, yet very few come even close to meeting their responsibilities. When Trump states that “allies” need to start living up to their responsibilities, he’s attacked for threatening NATO. One hopes that Trump’s preference for limiting direct military intervention and the delightful Mrs May’s argument that it is best to put the days of invading countries in the effort to re-invent them in our image behind us mark the start of a new era. That, and Trump’s preference for bilateral deals undermines the risible EU. Obtuse ad infinitum, innit?

  41. Janus: Theoretic constructs have long replaced pragmatism in European politics. The EU was built on lies, bullying and collusion. So-called “respectable” politicians have been lying brazenly for years. Blair? Brown? Cameron? Merkel? Sarkozy? Hollande? Schulz? Juncker? People see their lives getting worse, their neighbourhoods getting worse, their worlds becoming strange. Even if they don’t quite believe everything demagogues say, at least they can understand what they’re saying — and they at least speak to people, not above them.

  42. Janus. Of course they do.

    And those of us who want to be able to express our concerns about unlimited immigration, accommodating alien belief systems, and having to pander to minorities being ‘offended’, but are silenced, are also concerned that demagogues have taken advantage of the less thoughtful electorate to take power.

    But, make no bones about it – the politically correct are just as bad as Trump. They have simply pushed their agenda far more sneakily.

    But what to do? Remain silent – and continue with the status quo – when we will be silenced forever?

    Or join the demagogue and have my voice heard?

    I’d rather vote for someone who, at least acknowledges what I’m thinking, and will ensure that my opinion is respected than to continue to go along with a bunch of people who want to and will silence me.

    When I joined MyT my motto was “qui tacit consentit’ . I still hold to that – I do not consent and I will not be silent.

    Unfortunately, sometimes one must sup with the devil to achieve one’s aims! But I will never forget that I am using a long spoon – and I hope the Devil does too!

  43. We seem to be agreeing now. How boring! 😉

    Suddenly I’m reminded of Henry VIII and his response to the popular uprising in the Narth of England against his Dissolution of the monasteries, He lured the leaders to London on the pretext of ‘talks’ and ended the matter by executing them. It’s what tyrants do, eh?

  44. This morning Mrs J dragged me into a card shop in Wallingford and I noticed this book on sale.


    Normally I only buy books in second hand bookshops or on amazon however after a quick flick through I bought this because it was so funny. Below is one of the better trumpisms:-

    On Why He Wouldn’t Win

    ” And, you know there’s a real good chance, no matter what happens, I won’t win. Because you know, one of these blood sucking politicians who’s been bullshitting people for years will end up — you know, getting elected.
    Campaign event in Las Vegas, 28th April 2011

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: