if you're really upset about Trump's personality and not policies like you claim then this thread is not for you.
oh now there's this new media topic about Trump's mental health when they refused to cover Hillary's physical health. MOST SCRUTINISED PRESIDENT EVER!
It's amazing to me how people care so much more about what Trump SAYS than what he DOES. I mean, I wish he'd cool it on Twitter, but you really can't argue with the results. Doing what he said he would.
Kind of different to worry about a President's mental health as opposed to a candidate's physical health. Again, not sure what news sites you frequent (although I have a fairly good idea), but I saw plenty of coverage concerning Clinton's possible physical ailments.
They only briefly covered it when she literally fainted during the 9/11 memorial and even then they tried to keep it as quiet as possible
Has any political figure in American history ever had such dedicated fanbois like RocketsLegend, etc are to Trump? Seems like they have something personally invested to be so attached to a political figure.
So when the NY Times covered Clinton's decision to not be forthright about her condition (pneumonia), was that "fake news", because the President seems to think any kind of negative coverage by the NY Times is 'fake news'. OR is it only 'fake news' when it advances his agenda? By the way, I voted Republican, just not for Trump, so I am not a Clinton supporter.
So are you saying that the MSM only covered Hillary's health after it was known that she was sick and didn't assume or try to diagnose her like they're doing with Trump? Why is Trump held to a different standard?
Once there was 'evidence' that she was having some issues (falling, appearing weak, etc), there was coverage of it. But again, since there was a story in the NYT, it must have all been 'fake news' - right? Or is the President wrong when he talks about the 'failing New York Times'?
So...assume I faint tomorrow. Should my family have known it was going to happen and inform people? Not quite sure how you are faulting the media or anyone from not covering something that had yet to happen. Once there was evidence of potential health problems, it was covered.
What you want is for people to ignore President Trump's behavior and focus only on what he does. It does not work that way with the President of the United States. Unfortunately, what you are stuck with is having to admit that you are willing to ignore uncalled for behavior in the name of policies. I question whether you would hold other Presidents to that same standard. You seem to be an end-justifies-the-means person, and that might work for you, but it does not work for me. Unlike you, I acknowledge his achievements while holding him accountable for his unacceptable behavior.
This is due to the completely outlandish nature of it. He is losing some in the moderate to conservative base- this is what he has to worry about. Even they have their limits.
When you are president, what you say is policy at least foreign policy. When Trump tweets about having bigger “button” than Kim Jung, other countries make calculations and sometimes changes to adjust for what they think the president is communicating that leads to action. Here in the US and even in his own White House, Trump is considered a joke. A national embarrassment. In North Korea, China, Etc... this sh$& is taken seriously. The “watch what he does not what he tweets” shtick is a risky and cavalier attitude to have. What he says is policy as it is taken as an official United States position globally and affects all of us. You could be visiting abroad somewhere and with a tweet during his AM bowel movement, he could put your life at risk just like that.
Take politics out of the equation. Trump is unbelievably unprofessional and a chronic liar. He is an embarrassment as a representative of the United States.
What has he done since the election that "outlandlishly" exposes his personality/style that those voters DIDN'T know about prior to the election? I would posit....nothing. People voted for him once in spite of those things. Why wouldn't they do it again?
Is it completely outlandish? It seems to be mostly what you get in the media these days. Some could say 'yes, but you expect better from our President', but others could say he's the first President to effectively use social media. I wouldn't mind if he toned it down...but its been effective for him so far (and he had seemed to have toned it down). Does he need to worry about those outside of his core supporters? Yes. Are they all that concerned with what he says, over what he does? That is at the very least an open question, and I would argue that that is the very group probably most concerned with his actions.
