State of the Union

[GMDino]

(02-06-2018, 03:10 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: So Trump was quoting someone else that said it, then asked if it was ok to call it treason. I don't see where I was incorrect.

Btw, here's the other part of that online dictionary page:



This part of the definition could also be in context. You can betray your own country without it being a crime.

Well he played the "someone said" card he is so famous for.

He never seems to acknowledge who "says" these things.

But crime or no the word "treason" carries great weight.  Especially when the POTUS uses it to complain that people didn't clap for him.

[Belsnickel]

(02-06-2018, 03:10 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: So Trump was quoting someone else that said it, then asked if it was ok to call it treason. I don't see where I was incorrect.

And then, you know, says "why not?" That implies agreement with the idea of calling it treason.

[BmorePat87]

(02-06-2018, 02:45 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 1. He said "can I call that treason" from what I saw. It was a question, not a statement.

2. I'm pretty sure he's using this definition of treason: "the action of betraying someone or something.", rather than suggesting it was the crime of treason and all who sat should be arrested. But don't let that get in the way of any good "Trump is Hitler" talk.

3. Treason isn't a word that should be thrown around loosely, but Trump has no filter. Still, I don't think this means he has intentions to be an evil dictator who wants to kill freedom. It's just another dumb slip of the tongue from Trump, that dems will run with.

"Sure, why not?" seems to be giving an answer to that question with a follow up rhetorical device. Sometimes it's hard to say whether or not he's playing to his crowd or he believes what he says. The WH says he was joking. I don't think he meant anything nefarious by it, but I will say that not clapping isn't betraying anything, so either way, no definition fits. 

[Shake n Blake]

(02-06-2018, 06:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "Sure, why not?" seems to be giving an answer to that question with a follow up rhetorical device. Sometimes it's hard to say whether or not he's playing to his crowd or he believes what he says. The WH says he was joking. I don't think he meant anything nefarious by it, but I will say that not clapping isn't betraying anything, so either way, no definition fits. 

Yeah that was the part that made me think he didn't realize the weight of what he said. Still, when I use my "Trump filter", here's what I hear: "The dems exposed themselves for the assholes they are, by not standing for news that was objectively good for America (more jobs for blacks etc etc). They proved that they're more concerned with their hatred for all things Trump than they are about the people they're elected to represent."

The treason stuff was obviously tongue firmly in cheek, but I get what he's saying. I think sitting, mean-mugging and not clapping (or showing any form of approval) for more black folks working was pretty pathetic, and being more concerned about your party/agenda/hatred for Trump than showing approval of something like that kinda is betraying our country.

It's being incredibly stubborn and divisive over something that should unify us...at a time when we could sorely use it. The black caucus in particular should be ashamed. 

[hollodero]

(02-07-2018, 01:31 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yeah that was the part that made me think he didn't realize the weight of what he said. Still, when I use my "Trump filter", here's what I hear: "The dems exposed themselves for the assholes they are, by not standing for news that was objectively good for America (more jobs for blacks etc etc). They proved that they're more concerned with their hatred for all things Trump than they are about the people they're elected to represent."

The treason stuff was obviously tongue firmly in cheek, but I get what he's saying. I think sitting, mean-mugging and not clapping (or showing any form of approval) for more black folks working was pretty pathetic, and being more concerned about your party/agenda/hatred for Trump than showing approval of something like that kinda is betraying our country.

It's being incredibly stubborn and divisive over something that should unify us...at a time when we could sorely use it. The black caucus in particular should be ashamed. 

Ah, this smells like double standard. Whatever Trump does or says or implies is in reality only half as bad because it's Trump and we know our Donald, he just hears things and asks questions and talks loosely and probably doesn't even mean it. He gets filters, mulligans, whatever...
But the Democrats are the divisive ones. I don't know, that doesn't make much sense, especially when Republicans didn't clap at Obama's speeches either. Should Dems clap, maybe, then again it's hard to clap to the man who takes credit for everything, blame for nothing, makes everything about himself and is Donald Trump.

[GMDino]

(02-07-2018, 01:31 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yeah that was the part that made me think he didn't realize the weight of what he said. Still, when I use my "Trump filter", here's what I hear: "The dems exposed themselves for the assholes they are, by not standing for news that was objectively good for America (more jobs for blacks etc etc). They proved that they're more concerned with their hatred for all things Trump than they are about the people they're elected to represent."

The treason stuff was obviously tongue firmly in cheek, but I get what he's saying. I think sitting, mean-mugging and not clapping (or showing any form of approval) for more black folks working was pretty pathetic, and being more concerned about your party/agenda/hatred for Trump than showing approval of something like that kinda is betraying our country.

It's being incredibly stubborn and divisive over something that should unify us...at a time when we could sorely use it. The black caucus in particular should be ashamed. 

The only argument I'll make with the bolded is that he wanted credit for those things.  And the Democrats were not going to stand up and applaud him for something was trending for years before he took office.

I seriously doubt the Democrats aren't happy the trend continued...but again they aren't going to let him grandstand about something he had almost nothing to do with.

And the Republicans have done the exact same thing....and that still doesn't make it "right" if someone looks at it in the terms like you have bolded.  If you look at it as not giving credit where none is due then the Republicans look silly for jumping up.  Had Trump pulled the country from a recession and we were starting to see a massive turnaround then I would agree they should stand up and applaud.

At least no one called Trump a liar in the middle of the speech.  

[Shake n Blake]

(02-07-2018, 07:19 AM)hollodero Wrote: Ah, this smells like double standard. Whatever Trump does or says or implies is in reality only half as bad because it's Trump and we know our Donald, he just hears things and asks questions and talks loosely and probably doesn't even mean it. He gets filters, mulligans, whatever...
But the Democrats are the divisive ones. I don't know, that doesn't make much sense, especially when Republicans didn't clap at Obama's speeches either. Should Dems clap, maybe, then again it's hard to clap to the man who takes credit for everything, blame for nothing, makes everything about himself and is Donald Trump.

The double standard is the media running with every cringy thing Republicans say (this happened with George Dubya a LOT as well...it's funny how similar their presidencies were viewed by the left). It's easy to impulsively run with every cringy thing a President says...especially if you didn't vote for him. Then it works out great, as Trump provides plenty of petty talking points for people who want to be petty and look at words instead of real issues or actions. But I know what he meant here, and if you were being honest, you certainly do too.

I don't have footage of every SOTU, but I'm willing to guess that some republicans stood when Obama announced objectively good news. Democrats showed nearly 100% disgust with every bit of objectively good news. I'm also going to venture a wild guess that the black caucus didn't look disgusted over good news for black people...when it was Obama bringing the news. It was sad, and yes...it was divisive. 

Trump dividing the country is just a lazy left narrative that their base is gobbling right up, despite all the evidence (and reality) that this country was reaching critical mass while Obama was in office and Trump was just some rich guy mulling running for President. BLM, the media reporting every shooting as racially motivated before the facts were all in (jumping the gun, pun intended), and Colin Kaepernick are what divided this country. 

That all happened before Trump, and not to go off on a tangent, but the one thing I hated about Obama's presidency the most (I actually respected his ideas on health care - just not the execution) - was that as the first black President, he could've done so much to quell the division in this country, but he did nothing. Probably out of fear of losing voters. Sad.

[Shake n Blake]

(02-07-2018, 10:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: The only argument I'll make with the bolded is that he wanted credit for those things.  And the Democrats were not going to stand up and applaud him for something was trending for years before he took office.

I seriously doubt the Democrats aren't happy the trend continued...but again they aren't going to let him grandstand about something he had almost nothing to do with.

And the Republicans have done the exact same thing....and that still doesn't make it "right" if someone looks at it in the terms like you have bolded.  If you look at it as not giving credit where none is due then the Republicans look silly for jumping up.  Had Trump pulled the country from a recession and we were starting to see a massive turnaround then I would agree they should stand up and applaud.

At least no one called Trump a liar in the middle of the speech.  

Trump deserves plenty of credit for the stock market, job creation and companies investing in the USA since his election. 

From all reports, he's done an excellent job in these areas.

Holladero mentioned double standards. Another double standard would be dems taking credit for every bit of good news while blaming all the division on Trump.

[GMDino]

(02-07-2018, 10:32 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Trump deserves plenty of credit for the stock market, job creation and companies investing in the USA since his election. 

From all reports, he's done an excellent job in these areas.

Holladero mentioned double standards. Another double standard would be dems taking credit for every bit of good news while blaming all the division on Trump.

If someone wants to believe the narrative that Trump gets credit because businesses like Trump that's fine.

But policy wise he has done very little.  And, again, all we have seen is a continuing trend in the stock market (until the past few days) and unemployment.

the sports equivalent would if the closer in baseball comes in with a 10 run lead, he has one pitch, and gets the last out because the batter hit the ball and tripped coming out of the batter box but he claims he should get the win.

No doubt politicians like to take credit.  But that doesn't mean everyone has to stand and applaud.

And it certainly doesn't mean it's treason or lack of love of their country if they don't.

[GMDino]

(02-07-2018, 10:20 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I don't have footage of every SOTU, but I'm willing to guess that some republicans stood when Obama announced objectively good news. Democrats showed nearly 100% disgust with every bit of objectively good news. I'm also going to venture a wild guess that the black caucus didn't look disgusted over good news for black people...when it was Obama bringing the news. It was sad, and yes...it was divisive. 

So "some" versus "nearly 100%".

Two, four?  Ten?

That's personal bias looking at it.

It doesn't matter if it was zero on both sides or any number for one or the other.  It happens every year.  

[hollodero]

(02-07-2018, 10:20 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: The double standard is the media running with every cringy thing Republicans say (this happened with George Dubya a LOT as well...it's funny how similar their presidencies were viewed by the left). It's easy to impulsively run with every cringy thing a President says...especially if you didn't vote for him. Then it works out great, as Trump provides plenty of petty talking points for people who want to be petty and look at words instead of real issues or actions. But I know what he meant here, and if you were being honest, you certainly do too.

You call me dishonest - nah, it's ok of course. But you read me wrong. It was Trump bringing up treason, not a question from someone, he said it without a need to do so, so what's this "he didn't mean it that way" all about. Don't use this word to begin with. And if you do, it's not a media narrative that these are divisive words. Implying the other side might behave treasonous (that is the mildest way to put it) is divisive. His hard-core supporters eat that up without nuance and Trump knows it.

(02-07-2018, 10:20 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: I don't have footage of every SOTU, but I'm willing to guess that some republicans stood when Obama announced objectively good news. Democrats showed nearly 100% disgust with every bit of objectively good news. I'm also going to venture a wild guess that the black caucus didn't look disgusted over good news for black people...when it was Obama bringing the news. It was sad, and yes...it was divisive. 

Isn't that nitpicking a little. As for the black caucus, I'm not so into all the numbers so forgive if I got that wrong, but as far as I know black unemployment still is way higher than overall unemployment, there is no significant amount of lesser unemployment that didn't start way before Trump, wages still don't go up so the low-paid workers could finally avoid the powerty trap, and Trump didn't implement a policy that targets black unemployment specifically.

I do understand that Dems can be criticised for not clapping (I - honestly - don't care about Dems or Reps and have no horse in that race). But with measure. Words like betraying the country or treason aren't measured by a long stretch.

(02-07-2018, 10:20 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Trump dividing the country is just a lazy left narrative that their base is gobbling right up

No it isn't. As soon as you start with lock her up chants and call Obama a sick guy (after claiming for years he might have forged his birth certificate and whatnot), go after the FBI and make a bigger fuzz about Antifa then white supremacists marches etc., you are divisive. One can agree with Trump or not, but the notion that the guy who does all that (and lashes out against anyone on twitter etc. etc.) is an uniter isn't convincing to me.

(02-07-2018, 10:20 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: , despite all the evidence (and reality) that this country was reaching critical mass while Obama was in office and Trump was just some rich guy mulling running for President. BLM, the media reporting every shooting as racially motivated before the facts were all in (jumping the gun, pun intended), and Colin Kaepernick are what divided this country.

Ah... I agree halfway, but only because I guess that the whole racism cries are way exaggerated, something the "not-right" (can't call it "left") tends to do, I see it the same way generally. But speaking of lazy, it's a bit simple to blame all division on Obama. Only thing he did, as far as I know, was implementing or aiming for policies the right didn't like.
On the other hand, I remember McConnell and others flatout saying they want Obama to be a one-time presidént ant that there's no chance in hell Republicans would ever work with him, fundamental opposition was declared, and well that contributes to a climate as well. I couldn't paint that as black and white.
Same for Kaepernick. He did what he did for a reason, and Trump picked up the fight and had plenty of oil to pour in the flames, so the escalation is not on Colin Kaepernick alone.
 

(02-07-2018, 10:20 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: That all happened before Trump, and not to go off on a tangent, but the one thing I hated about Obama's presidency the most (I actually respected his ideas on health care - just not the execution) - was that as the first black President, he could've done so much to quell the division in this country, but he did nothing. Probably out of fear of losing voters. Sad.

Like what?
Working with the GOP wasn't an option, and that one, as far as I can tell, was not on him. You still might have a point, I just don't know the point yet.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-07-2018, 10:40 AM)GMDino Wrote: If someone wants to believe the narrative that Trump gets credit because businesses like Trump that's fine.

But policy wise he has done very little.  And, again, all we have seen is a continuing trend in the stock market (until the past few days) and unemployment.

the sports equivalent would if the closer in baseball comes in with a 10 run lead, he has one pitch, and gets the last out because the batter hit the ball and tripped coming out of the batter box but he claims he should get the win.

No doubt politicians like to take credit.  But that doesn't mean everyone has to stand and applaud.

And it certainly doesn't mean it's treason or lack of love of their country if they don't.

Who brings their closer in with a 10 run lead?  

[GMDino]

(02-07-2018, 10:56 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Who brings their closer in with a 10 run lead?  

Republicans? 

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(02-07-2018, 01:31 AM)Shake n Blake Wrote: Yeah that was the part that made me think he didn't realize the weight of what he said. Still, when I use my "Trump filter", here's what I hear: "The dems exposed themselves for the assholes they are, by not standing for news that was objectively good for America (more jobs for blacks etc etc). They proved that they're more concerned with their hatred for all things Trump than they are about the people they're elected to represent."

The treason stuff was obviously tongue firmly in cheek, but I get what he's saying. I think sitting, mean-mugging and not clapping (or showing any form of approval) for more black folks working was pretty pathetic, and being more concerned about your party/agenda/hatred for Trump than showing approval of something like that kinda is betraying our country.

It's being incredibly stubborn and divisive over something that should unify us...at a time when we could sorely use it. The black caucus in particular should be ashamed. 

I have no horse in this race and being Canadian, I could give 2 flying ***** about a man I haven't liked or cared about since I was a kid (legitmately, as a kid I didn't like him not 1 bit), but that sounds an awful lot like election time with Hillary, doesn't it?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(02-07-2018, 10:44 AM)hollodero Wrote: You call me dishonest - nah, it's ok of course. But you read me wrong. It was Trump bringing up treason, not a question from someone, he said it without a need to do so, so what's this "he didn't mean it that way" all about. Don't use this word to begin with. And if you do, it's not a media narrative that these are divisive words. Implying the other side might behave treasonous (that is the mildest way to put it) is divisive. His hard-core supporters eat that up without nuance and Trump knows it.


Isn't that nitpicking a little. As for the black caucus, I'm not so into all the numbers so forgive if I got that wrong, but as far as I know black unemployment still is way higher than overall unemployment, there is no significant amount of lesser unemployment that didn't start way before Trump, wages still don't go up so the low-paid workers could finally avoid the powerty trap, and Trump didn't implement a policy that targets black unemployment specifically.

I do understand that Dems can be criticised for not clapping (I - honestly - don't care about Dems or Reps and have no horse in that race). But with measure. Words like betraying the country or treason aren't measured by a long stretch.


No it isn't. As soon as you start with lock her up chants and call Obama a sick guy (after claiming for years he might have forged his birth certificate and whatnot), go after the FBI and make a bigger fuzz about Antifa then white supremacists marches etc., you are divisive. One can agree with Trump or not, but the notion that the guy who does all that (and lashes out against anyone on twitter etc. etc.) is an uniter isn't convincing to me.


Ah... I agree halfway, but only because I guess that the whole racism cries are way exaggerated, something the "not-right" (can't call it "left") tends to do, I see it the same way generally. But speaking of lazy, it's a bit simple to blame all division on Obama. Only thing he did, as far as I know, was implementing or aiming for policies the right didn't like.
On the other hand, I remember McConnell and others flatout saying they want Obama to be a one-time presidént ant that there's no chance in hell Republicans would ever work with him, fundamental opposition was declared, and well that contributes to a climate as well. I couldn't paint that as black and white.
Same for Kaepernick. He did what he did for a reason, and Trump picked up the fight and had plenty of oil to pour in the flames, so the escalation is not on Colin Kaepernick alone.
 

Like what?
Working with the GOP wasn't an option, and that one, as far as I can tell, was not on him. You still might have a point, I just don't know the point yet.

Oh how I loathe that man.....

[Shake n Blake]

(02-07-2018, 10:44 AM)hollodero Wrote: 1. You call me dishonest - nah, it's ok of course. But you read me wrong. It was Trump bringing up treason, not a question from someone, he said it without a need to do so, so what's this "he didn't mean it that way" all about. Don't use this word to begin with. And if you do, it's not a media narrative that these are divisive words. Implying the other side might behave treasonous (that is the mildest way to put it) is divisive. His hard-core supporters eat that up without nuance and Trump knows it.


2. Isn't that nitpicking a little. As for the black caucus, I'm not so into all the numbers so forgive if I got that wrong, but as far as I know black unemployment still is way higher than overall unemployment, there is no significant amount of lesser unemployment that didn't start way before Trump, wages still don't go up so the low-paid workers could finally avoid the powerty trap, and Trump didn't implement a policy that targets black unemployment specifically.

3. I do understand that Dems can be criticised for not clapping (I - honestly - don't care about Dems or Reps and have no horse in that race). But with measure. Words like betraying the country or treason aren't measured by a long stretch.


4. No it isn't. As soon as you start with lock her up chants and call Obama a sick guy (after claiming for years he might have forged his birth certificate and whatnot), go after the FBI and make a bigger fuzz about Antifa then white supremacists marches etc., you are divisive. One can agree with Trump or not, but the notion that the guy who does all that (and lashes out against anyone on twitter etc. etc.) is an uniter isn't convincing to me.


5. Ah... I agree halfway, but only because I guess that the whole racism cries are way exaggerated, something the "not-right" (can't call it "left") tends to do, I see it the same way generally. But speaking of lazy, it's a bit simple to blame all division on Obama. Only thing he did, as far as I know, was implementing or aiming for policies the right didn't like.
On the other hand, I remember McConnell and others flatout saying they want Obama to be a one-time presidént ant that there's no chance in hell Republicans would ever work with him, fundamental opposition was declared, and well that contributes to a climate as well. I couldn't paint that as black and white.

5.5 Same for Kaepernick. He did what he did for a reason, and Trump picked up the fight and had plenty of oil to pour in the flames, so the escalation is not on Colin Kaepernick alone.
 

Like what?
Working with the GOP wasn't an option, and that one, as far as I can tell, was not on him. You still might have a point, I just don't know the point yet.

This is already getting too deep for me. Don't you know I only dabble in PnR? Sheesh. 

1. I honestly didn't know who brought it up. Either way, Trump shoots from the hip and plants his tongue in his cheek often. He shouldn't have used the word "treason", but we shouldn't have a heart attack over it, either. He probably didn't know this would be made so public. It's not like he said this in a speech or in a tweet. He should know he's under a microscope though, and any bad words will be rooted out and put on full display. 

Saying that's divisive though? Idk. I wouldn't call it "unifying", but I doubt Trump being critical of dems for sitting is going to divide this country any further than it is or was before he took Oath.

2. That's really not the point. Progress is progress. And sure, black unemployment has been trending down since 2012, but many predicted Trump's policies would cause black unemployment (and unemployment in general) to rise, but that hasn't happened. The trend has continued, and I do think Trump deserves some credit for that.

3. Fair enough.

4. I never said Trump is a uniter. I just said he didn't start this division, nor is he the biggest reason for it. The left tries to paint him that way.

5. I'm not blaming Obama for the division. I'm only saying that I'm disappointed that - as the first black President - he could've done more to quell those tensions than anyone. As for what, maybe working with police while publicly stating that most police are good men. Not saying that if he had a son, it'd look like Trayvon. Perhaps he should've said "rioting and violent protest is not the answer" instead of staying silent.

The only quotes I read from Obama suggested that it (police targeting/killing blacks) really was/is a big problem. Much like with Kaepernick, I didn't see any solutions...just suggestions that police are bad, and there was no calls to stop the rioting/violent protests. The police in this country deserve better than to be judged on the actions of a tiny percentage of officers. Words from Obama could've done much to ease the tensions and stop the violence. Unfortunately, those words never came.

5.5. The added oil came from a great increase in players kneeling before Trump made his "get those a-holes off the field" remarks. Trump didn't make all these players take a knee, and they were all taking a knee long before Trump's remarks. Trump also didn't make the NFL take a passive approach to the issue (NBA and MLB have rules against it). 

This issue is not on Trump one bit. There is big portion of this country that (a) is disgusted with this form of protest and/or (b) doesn't completely agree with the cause or how police are being portrayed. Regardless of what Trump said at that rally, the player protests were going to continue full force. 

[Shake n Blake]

(02-07-2018, 10:56 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Who brings their closer in with a 10 run lead?  

GMDino is a terrible manager. 

[*bfine32*]

(02-06-2018, 06:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And then, you know, says "why not?" That implies agreement with the idea of calling it treason.

So if I say"why not", I am agreeing?

[*bfine32*]

(02-06-2018, 06:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "Sure, why not?" seems to be giving an answer to that question with a follow up rhetorical device. Sometimes it's hard to say whether or not he's playing to his crowd or he believes what he says. The WH says he was joking. I don't think he meant anything nefarious by it, but I will say that not clapping isn't betraying anything, so either way, no definition fits. 

Did Trump say sure?

[hollodero]

(02-07-2018, 12:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: This is already getting too deep for me. Don't you know I only dabble in PnR? Sheesh. 

To summarize all my responses to the Trump saying: I can see reasons not to clap, I can see reasons to clap. It's definitely fair game for Trump to address this and criticize the non-clappers. But using words like treason is totally overblowing it, and that serves no purpose than to further deepen the trenches. That is not a word used lightly. And just imagine Obama had said "listen some folk say McConnell is a traitor, and I guess I'd say why not? Why not?" - and FOX et al. wouldn't have needed a microscope to declare a scandal. At least I guess that's true.

So that this gets mentioned in the media... that's not a surprise and not their fault. It's not the media's job to suppress stories for the national unity's interest.

(02-07-2018, 12:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 4. I never said Trump is a uniter. I just said he didn't start this division, nor is he the biggest reason for it. The left tries to paint him that way.

Yeah that's what your parties usually do - maybe even have to do, in a landscape where voter turnout decides elections. I do think Trump's a big reason for division though, although certainly not the only reason. He led the birther movement for years, questioned Obamas legitimacy, the legitimacy of the election in case he loses, the legitimacy of the election after he lost the popular vote, invented lock her up chants, calls the media enemies of the people, Kaepernick a SOAB, posted videos of British extremists.... and you know things like that go on and on. That he gets painted as divisive is not on the Democrats or the media, it's on him and him alone.

(02-07-2018, 12:09 PM)Shake n Blake Wrote: 5. I'm not blaming Obama for the division. I'm only saying that I'm disappointed that - as the first black President - he could've done more to quell those tensions than anyone. As for what, maybe working with police while publicly stating that most police are good men. Not saying that if he had a son, it'd look like Trayvon. Perhaps he should've said "rioting and violent protest is not the answer" instead of staying silent.

The only quotes I read from Obama suggested that it (police targeting/killing blacks) really was/is a big problem. Much like with Kaepernick, I didn't see any solutions...just suggestions that police are bad, and there was no calls to stop the rioting/violent protests. The police in this country deserve better than to be judged on the actions of a tiny percentage of officers. Words from Obama could've done much to ease the tensions and stop the violence. Unfortunately, those words never came.

5.5. The added oil came from a great increase in players kneeling before Trump made his "get those a-holes off the field" remarks. Trump didn't make all these players take a knee, and they were all taking a knee long before Trump's remarks. Trump didn't make the NFL take a passive approach to the issue (NBA and MLB have rules against it). 

This issue is not on Trump one bit. There is big portion of this country that (a) is disgusted with this form of protest and/or (b) doesn't completely agree with the cause or how police are being portrayed. Regardless of what Trump said at that rally, the player protests were going to continue full force. 

OK. You might be right to a degree, I know too little about Obama's actions here. - I am not fully sold on Kaepernick's actions, but I can understand the Kaepernick side of this (there just were a certain number of police killings of black people for no apparent reason). One can say media overreported on those and everything (and I know very little about that, so), but one must somehow understand (I don't mean agree with) the perspective of black people on that, it's not so easily dismissed. I can see the other (say: your) side as well, the reasoning for not wanting the whole police painted in a bad way and to wish for the president to more forcefully protect them from attacks and to condemn violence at protests and all that. That's a legit point, even I don't fully agree.

But my huge issue is a different one here. It's when one day it's utterly important to protect the brave and noble policemen from leftist attacks - oh my god law enforcement is unfairly portrayed so badly! - and the next day, the same guys smear FBI agents and the whole FBI with one unfounded accusation after another just so an investigation into the president goes away - let's portray law enforcement as bad as possible!
- That is quite inconsistent, isn't it.