Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It takes intellectual curiosity to read the article. I too saw it yesterday, thought about posting about it, but thought why tilt with warlocks. Another interesting figure in history who shares some of the personality characteristics with #45 is our 26th president, Teddy Roosevelt. The media were scandalized by his plain outspokenness, not relying on courteous and soft words. Quite unsettling for the time, just as #45s use of twitter is today.
Teddy Roosevelt was well-read, a veteran, a patriotic American, a conservationist and a lover of the natural world, a faithful husband and loving and devoted father, and so much more than you credit him with being.
It takes intellectual curiosity to read the article. I too saw it yesterday, thought about posting about it, but thought why tilt with warlocks. Another interesting figure in history who shares some of the personality characteristics with #45 is our 26th president, Teddy Roosevelt. The media were scandalized by his plain outspokenness, not relying on courteous and soft words. Quite unsettling for the time, just as #45s use of twitter is today.
Just who was it who famously said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick"?
Churchill was a fanatic free trader. The difference between Churchill and Trump is Churchill was a damn genius and Trump simply a populist with no gravitas.
Trump isn't really a populist though (Candidate Trump maybe, but President Trump no).
Ahh, but you look at a part and conflate a whole. Neither Spartacus - if I get this wrong she can correct me - nor myself made broad, all-encompassing comparisons. Simply that ...shares some of the personality characteristics...
My mind is such that I can compare the speaking ability of FDR and BHO as being similar and compelling, without conflating the whole.
You see, that is where a hyper-partisan viewpoint fails. Conflating the whole for a part.
No woman, nor nor an is perfect, a perfect success, or a perfect failure.
blah blah blah. In the end what you want to do is pick out one single thing, rather then the whole. I could argue that Trump has far more in common with oh say....Hitler or some other great evil, and probably manage that by cherry picking the comparisons.
And the title? The Churchillian mr trump? Sorry, but when thats the topic at hand, its not "some small individual thing that they have in common", its "this is why trump is very much like Churchill. Which requires a larger comparison. And when the OP starts the discussion they use words like temperament. And in point of fact, its that very subject that I posted about. His temperament.
So please, lets talk about the topic, not some goal post moved cherry picked comparison.
blah blah blah. In the end what you want to do is pick out one single thing, rather then the whole. I could argue that Trump has far more in common with oh say....Hitler or some other great evil, and probably manage that by cherry picking the comparisons.
And the title? The Churchillian mr trump? Sorry, but when thats the topic at hand, its not "some small individual thing that they have in common", its "this is why trump is very much like Churchill. Which requires a larger comparison. And when the OP starts the discussion they use words like temperament. And in point of fact, its that very subject that I posted about. His temperament.
So please, lets talk about the topic, not some goal post moved cherry picked comparison.
It s the parts that make up a whole.
And when someone in substantial power over others does a whole lotta selfserving lying deflecting,ignoring,misspelling,misquoting,namecal ling,cyberbullying, labeling,golfing and spending other peoples money...while RUNNING AWAY FROM fulfilling their oath of Office...they don't get to be compared to Churchill.
Roosevelt was vastly more intelligent, and honest. And its that basic honesty that causes the comparisons to fail. Churchill was a very polarizing figure, and was trying to lead a country in time of war. A country that when he took office really truly was looking at possibly losing the war. If Dunkirk had gone even slightly differently, the war would have been lost I think. When Churchill lied (and he did-especially to allies in the war in my opinion) he did so with a purpose.
Trump lies 3 times a day on average, and over idiocy like how many attended his event.
Teddy wrote 35 books (all by himself, too), gave us the National Park System, and supported public interest fully against Corporate America. He also was a family man and a devoted father who didn't consort with prostitutes and pay them hush money while his children were babies. The biggest scandal of his administration was when Booker T. Washington was invited to the White House for dinner in 1901.
We could use another Teddy, stat. Another Churchill, not so much, at the present time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
