Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Going low and lower: Trump and Lindsey Graham on congressional ‘lynching’

To state the obvious, President Donald Trump’s comparison of the congressional inquiry into his very possibly impeachable acts to a “lynching” was offensive, histrionic and really, really pitiful (or should I say self-pitiful? For a person who has had so much handed to him, he has a surprising gift for self-pity and whining).

Lynching refers to thousands of instances in which helpless black men with no rights were strung up and murdered by mobs without, shall we say, benefit of any due process nor conviction of any crime, for offenses as serious as, say, looking at a white woman.

Even the likes of Sen. Mitch McConnell disputed the accuracy of the analogy. Which made it all the more outrageous that Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, who not so long ago stood for a certain kind of truth-teller figure as the top Senate amigo of maverick John McCain, laid the biggest stink bomb to date on that former reputation by saying, out loud, while apparently awake and under no coercion except his own ambition, that what was being done to Trump was indeed a “a lynching in every sense.”

In every sense. A lynching in every sense.

He’ll never be able to un-say that no matter how much he misses his former reputation as a person of character (although, at the moment, he shows no interest in hanging on to that reputation).

Forgive me for taking his don’t-know-whether-to-laugh-or-cry words seriously enough to bother with them, but let’s point out a few a “senses” in which what is happening to Trump is not much like a lynching. To state the obvious:

Donald Trump is not helpless, not a slave nor a member of an oppressed racial minority, and he is so filled with self-pity that he doesn’t seem like much of a man. He stands accused of using the enormous powers of the office he occupies for improper purposes that could, without straining very hard, be compared to yes, “treason,” and “bribery,” and “high crimes,” and, of course, “misdemeanors,” whatever one decides the Framers meant by those terms.

To survive this “lynching,” Trump needs just 34 senators, from a body in which his own fellow Republicans hold 53 seats, and, while most of them are not quite as devoted as Graham, few of them have had the guts to cross him on roughly anything.

I expect him to survive the “lynching” attempt, but if he doesn’t, it will surely be because he continues to demonstrate such colossally unpresidential behavior, including his self-pitying “lynching” analogy, that even his own lickspittles decide they would rather risk losing their sinecures than lick his spittle any longer.

Comments (67)

  1. Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/23/2019 - 01:39 pm.

    How many of those who said that calling of ICE detention facilities “concentration camps” trivialized the Holocaust are going to say anything about trivializing lynching?

    I’m guessing it’s close to zero, counting those who say “yes, it’s bad, but . . .” as not really saying anything.

    • Submitted by Connor OKeefe on 10/24/2019 - 08:43 am.

      Calling of ICE detention facilities “concentration camps” was every bit as silly as calling the circus that the house Democrats are running a “lynching”.

      Hyperbole; it’s what we do.

      • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/24/2019 - 09:31 am.

        “Every bit as silly?”

        “Lynching” is defined variously as killing someone outside the legal process (usually by hanging), or inflicting bodily injury bodily injury on the basis of perceived race, color, religion or, nationality.

        A “concentration camp” is defined by experts in the field as a place for the mass detention of civilians without trial.

        Those of us not enamored with any form of fascism can see a clear distinction between the two, and can also understand why one might be applicable to a current situation.

      • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 10/24/2019 - 05:30 pm.

        Well CO you got the circus part right. The Republicans really did unload the clown car yesterday, didn’t they!

  2. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 10/23/2019 - 02:15 pm.

    Well we will see if it is party before country, a truly sad state of affairs when one party not only supports but evidently encourages corruption and then stack the courts with what appear to be like minded judges! Can’t make this stuff up, it is there in front of our faces if we chose to be open minded enough to look at it.

  3. Submitted by Edward Blaise on 10/23/2019 - 02:46 pm.

    Lindsay’s pandering to Trump and his resulting approval ratings rise in South Carolina puts him in Edwin Edwards like territory for his reelection chances:

    “Edwin Washington Edwards (born August 7, 1927) is a former Governor of Louisiana and on an election day, Edwards joked with reporters: “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy”

    To which Graham’s Democratic opponent in 2020, Jaime Harrison, should say (With credits to Jim Carrey in “Dumb and Dumber”):

    “So you’re telling me there’s a chance?”

  4. Submitted by Pat Berg since 2011 on 10/24/2019 - 06:14 am.

    I’m sorry to say that during the Clinton impeachment proceedings, Democrats also used this term (as reported by HuffPost). Doesn’t make it any more excusable, however.

  5. Submitted by Harris Goldstein on 10/24/2019 - 12:40 pm.

    Lindsay Graham’s conscience was buried with John McCain’s body. We sorely miss McCain.

    And apparently Graham’s mind has been effected. He rants about Trump’s right to confront accuser and see the evidence, ignoring the fact that this is an inquiry with a trial possibly to come in the future. A reasonable misunderstanding for a layman, but a surprising failure for someone who is an attorney, a former Air Force Judge Advocate, and former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

    His latest proclamation – that the Senate should summarily dismiss any impeachment proceeding without a trial – is equally hair brained. Such an action would remove any doubt that Trump is guilty.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/24/2019 - 02:41 pm.

      You would think he would know about grand jury procedures, and see the obvious correlation between them and the House Committee hearings. Of course, the analogy is not a complete one, as witnesses before this committee are entitled to have counsel present, and have more latitude in pleading the Fifth than they would before a grand jury.

    • Submitted by Harris Goldstein on 10/24/2019 - 05:07 pm.

      A bit of an update: Fox News’ Napolitano says that the Democrats are following the House rules passed by a Republican majority in 2015,

      Irony, say hello to hypocrisy.

  6. Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 10/24/2019 - 02:28 pm.

    We can argue about the number of angels that fit on the head of a pin, or we can focus on Donald Trump’s use of absolutely foul language in public.

    He’s going lower and lower, using obscenities and gutter language daily, in his insults and dismissals of all who oppose him or prove hi wrong on facts.

    Where’s the soap when someone’s mouth needs it?

    This–this?–is our president?

  7. Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/25/2019 - 08:59 pm.

    Not only did Joe Biden refer to the impeachment proceedings against our #metoo president Bill Clinton as a lynching, so did two African-American representatives still serving in the House: Gregory Meeks, D-NY and Danny Davis, D-Ill. And, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler called it a lynching too.

    I don’t recall any outrage, but at the time it didn’t serve any useful purpose. Since these four are current political figures, denounce them. Only then can your criticism of President Trump be taken seriously, and until then, the cartoon bubble above your head remains empty.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/26/2019 - 01:55 pm.

      Maybe because those four were not being obvious hypocrites when they used the term.

      • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/26/2019 - 10:06 pm.

        Article 1 and Article 3 of the Clinton Impeachment provided below. He earned all of those charges – guilty. How is this a lynching?

        “Article One: In his conduct while President of the United States . . . in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of the President . . . has . . . undermined the integrity of his office . . . betrayed his trust as President . . . and acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law by:

        willfully corrupting and manipulating the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration

        willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to his relationship with an employee

        willfully committing perjury by providing false and misleading testimony to the grand jury in relation to prior perjurious testimony in a civil rights action brought against him

        allowing his attorney to make false and misleading statements in the same civil rights action

        attempting to influence witness testimony and slow the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action

        Article Three: . . . has [in the Paula Jones Case] prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice by:

        encouraging a witness to give a perjurious affidavit

        encouraging a witness to give false testimony if called to the stand

        allowing and/or encouraging the concealment of subpoenaed evidence

        attempting to sway a witness testimony by providing a job for that witness

        allowing his attorney to make misleading testimony

        giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a potential witness in a Federal civil rights action

        giving false or misleading information to influence the testimony of a witness in a grand jury investigation

        • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/27/2019 - 09:04 pm.

          Of course, the Paula Jones case concerned actions that occurred before Clinton became President.
          The Lewinsky case did not concern actions of governance as President, but rather his personal behavior. Few presidents in our history could withstand tests of absolute moral rectitude in their personal behavior.

        • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/28/2019 - 09:12 am.

          “He earned all of those charges – guilty.”

          First, there is a big difference between “earning” charges and being guilty.

          Second, as you may or may not choose to recall, President Clinton was acquitted of all the charges brought against him.

          Third, I know that you will say you are whipping this particular deceased steed because of the “hypocrisy” of the left, but before you do, I suggest you look more closely at the hypocrisy of the Republicans who are fighting impeachment by resorting to obstruction of justice and angry mobs. Never mind what the liberal media and all the lefties are saying. Why are Republicans doing what they are doing?

          • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/28/2019 - 01:17 pm.

            As the Washington Post likes to say, Democracy Dies in the Darkness. The Republicans are protesting the secret and closed door nature of the impeachment hearings, which seemed obvious.

            • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/28/2019 - 01:50 pm.

              No secrets from Republicans, who are represented on the committees and have been present at the deliberations. Called desperation.

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/28/2019 - 03:19 pm.

                Those of us in CD5 are not represented by any Republicans, and the Representative is not responding to my inquiries.

            • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/28/2019 - 01:53 pm.

              It seems like total b******t. The Republicans had no problems keeping the Benghazi hearings secret, supposedly due to concerns about the integrity of the investigations and national security. For them to claim that these hearings should be open when many of the same concerns are implicated should outrage anyone who says he is opposed to “hypocrisy.”

              Unless, of course, they aren’t really so outraged by “hypocrisy,” but just use it as a transparent tool for deflection.

              • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/29/2019 - 09:29 pm.

                This column is about an impeachment being characterized as a lynching. You should either be able to denounce that unequivocally or not. However, it is only bad for Trump; good for all others including Biden. No surprise here.

                • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/30/2019 - 09:41 am.

                  I have no idea what you’re trying to get at here.

                  You should face the fact that the President you support with such determination is a liar, a crook, and a would-be autocrat who has no problem with shredding the Constitution in service of his power. The only reason impeachment is a partisan issue is a combination of tribal loyalty, fear of Trump supporters, and a willingness to approve autocracy when it serves your ends. The “hypocrisy” at work here s the hypocrisy of Republicans – self-described conservatives who claim fealty to the Constitution and our Republic – in not just allowing it to happen, but in enabling and actively participating in it.

                  Whinge all you like about the liberal media, sniff mightily at the unfairness of it all, dig away to find why the President’s more offensive comments are being “taken out of context.” It doesn’t change what is happening.

                  • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/30/2019 - 12:06 pm.

                    What I am getting at; merely amplifying and celebrating another paragraph in the great fake outrage anti-Trump narrative that will surely lead to his re-election. Onward with impeachment.

            • Submitted by Larry Moran on 10/28/2019 - 02:03 pm.

              These meetings are hardly secret–everyone knows where and when they take place. They are behind closed doors in the event that something said falls under a national security blanket; I expect the testimony will be repeated in an open hearing if an impeachment proceeding begins. Finally, nearly half of those listening–and participating–are of the minority party. While not bright sunshine yet I hardly consider these hearing occurring in the dark.

              BTW, I enjoy the irony of a Trump defender quoting the beloved Washington Post.

  8. Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/25/2019 - 09:30 pm.

    This John McCain you speak of, is he the same one the left-media labeled a racist when he ran for office of President in 2008?

    Of course, now McCain is useful since becoming an outspoken critic of President Trump. Prior to that, his press was mainly negative, as noted in the The Hill article linked below. Mitt Romney hopes to punch his ticket on that McCain train.

    • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 10/26/2019 - 09:51 am.

      So SR your point is what, the wind always blows in one direction? Sounds like supporting Trump today after discovering he is a criminal yesterday is fully acceptable because you supported him the day before yesterday. Some folks can see Racism in ads that may not be the person, i.e. separate the ad from the person, Yes, folks remember the Willie Horton ads. (That is what the article was suggesting.

    • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 10/26/2019 - 11:21 am.

      Hey, Steve Rose: John McCain is dead. Or haven’t you heard?

      Let’s focus on the garbage=mouth president Trump. And his over-the-top and constant whining, self-pity, as Victim Number One.

      Poor, poor Donny.

    • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/26/2019 - 01:53 pm.

      John McCain was one of those people who was respected even by people who disagreed with him.
      Trump is the opposite.

    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/26/2019 - 10:21 pm.

      DW: No. I don’t understand what any of that means.

      CS: I am quite certain that Eric Black was aware of the passing of Senator McCain, but decided to mention him in this column anyway.

      PB: No, McCain actually wasn’t respected by people who disagreed with him. The Hill column I linked was about how poorly he was regarded by the press. They called him a racist. Please provide a pre-Trump MinnPost quote of yourself or any other left leaning commenter making a positive comment regarding Senator McCain.

      This kerfuffle regarding the use of the lynching metaphor is merely another unvarnished attempt to paint the President as a racist. But Joe Biden, the older and whiter guy, can use the word with impunity. What other words, in the same context, can Joe Biden utter that are off limits to the President?

      • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/27/2019 - 09:35 am.

        I was thinking more of McCain’s relationships with his colleagues; see Feingold-McCain.
        Russ Feingold was about as far left as you could go.
        And Biden has gotten plenty of flack from the Left about his history of cooperation with Southrun racists. But he does also have a civil rights record that Trump lacks — Biden never evicted Black tenants from housing that he owned.

        • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/27/2019 - 03:57 pm.

          There is a not so subtle difference between evicting black tenants and evicting tenants because they are black. Unfortunately, eviction is part of landlords’ lives.

          • Submitted by Paul Brandon on 10/27/2019 - 09:05 pm.

            Literally true, but hard to prove when most of the evictees just happen to be black.

            • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/28/2019 - 10:27 am.

              He didn’t discriminate against them when he leased to them. But though they were current on their rents, he evicted them. He didn’t want their money. Yes, that sounds a lot like him.

          • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/28/2019 - 10:22 am.

            Joe Biden never entered into a consent decree to settle charges of racial discrimination in his many real estate holdings. It stands to reason that he was therefore never accused of violating such a decree.

            And I know that a consent decree includes no admission of liability, but as anyone who knows about this kind of litigation can tell you, where there’s smoke, there’s fire.

            • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/28/2019 - 11:07 am.

              Really, we are satisfied with “where, there’s smoke there’s fire.”? Everyone facing charges is guilty? There are places like that, but that is not America.

              • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/28/2019 - 12:17 pm.

                Kind of like saying President Clinton “earned all of those charges – guilty,” isn’t it?

                I think if you look into this type of litigation, you will see that the federal government rarely brings an action unless it is confident it can win. Housing discrimination suits are brought after a detailed investigation Given Donald Trump’s predilection for litigation, one has to suspect there was a good reason he did not want to litigate further.

              • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/28/2019 - 12:59 pm.

                Here’s the smoke: the FBI has made available online its “materials on an investigation conducted between 1972 and 1974 into allegations that the Trump Management Company had discriminated against applicants for apartment rentals on account of their race.”



              • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 10/28/2019 - 02:49 pm.

                Trump and his father lost that federal racial discrimination case! Lost, as in, indicted and then determined to be guilty.

                Just as, were he not the sitting president, Trump (“Individual Number One”) would join his lawyer, Michael Cohen, in prison for that campaign violation. And numerous instances of obstruction of justice in “the Russia thing,” according to the Mueller report that no one seems to have read in its entirety.

      • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 10/27/2019 - 10:25 am.

        The simple explanation goes: Once a decision, opinion is made it can’t be altered, despite a change in information, facts experiences. (the wind never changes direction). The other part is the suggestion that (all, everyone signed up for a particular point of view) thus you can paint everyone with the same brush (stereotype as they say), The other piece is that, because of citizens united, folks may run ads that do not reflect the candidate, and the candidate has no control over those ads. I remember McCain contradicting/admonishing a Republican voter when they made a derogatory comment about Obama. I wouldn’t sign up for the racist, rhetoric on McCain, but no problem on Trump. The winds are always changing, appears Trump however has continuous ill will blowing wind for the majority of Americans and likes it that way, anything to create division, help the rich get richer, undo our democracy and the previous (majority) elected presidential policies, while his supports can not see the writing on the wall.

        • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/28/2019 - 10:25 am.

          The prevailing wind in the popular media is always anti-Trump.

          When President Obama gets bin Laden, it is praiseworthy good news; when President Trump gets Baghdadi, it is not. When President Obama pulls troops from the middle east to spare American blood and treasure, it is good news; when President Trump pulls troops from the middle east to spare American blood and treasure, it is a mistake. When President Obama meets with the communist dictator of Cuba it is right; when President Trump meets with the communist dictator of North Korea, it is wrong. President Trump has never done anything right; if he has done it, it is wrong. If President Trump cured cancer, we would here about all of the job losses he caused.

          It is more of the same negative attention and press that got him elected in 2016, and that is contributing presently to his reelection. All we need to seal that deal is for the House to impeach; keep the wind blowing in the same direction.

          • Submitted by Sandra Nelson on 10/28/2019 - 01:27 pm.

            Mr. Rose, your thinking is fallacious. President Obama did not make up a story about Osama bin Laden’s killing. President Trump fabricated “crying” and “screaming” when, in fact, there was no audio of Baghdadi’s killing. President Obama pulled troops out of the Middle East, but President Trump did not, despite what he says. He simply lied and re-shuffled their assignments in the region. I happened to be in Cuba when President Obama lessened restrictions on American travel there. Do your homework. There is NO COMPARISON between Cuba and North Korea. Finally, In November 2020, I hope we cure the cancer you and your ilk have wrought on our country.

            • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/28/2019 - 03:53 pm.

              Our country does not have cancer, though that is a common delusion of Trump Durangement Syndrome. Clearly, your thinking is sophistical.

              The President didn’t claim there was audio. He may have heard a first person account.

              There certainly is a comparison between two countries run by communist dictators.

              • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/28/2019 - 05:30 pm.

                “The President didn’t claim there was audio. He may have heard a first person account.”

                Or, he may have pulled it out of his rear end. The man is not known for his adherence to the truth. According to NBC News, “Trump also said al-Baghdadi was ‘crying and screaming’ as U.S. forces chased him down, but U.S. officials said they didn’t hear those sounds, and [Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair General Mark] Milley told reporters he doesn’t know the source of the president’s information on that.”

                “There certainly is a comparison between two countries run by communist dictators.”

                I think it’s more of a contrast (highlighting the differences) than a comparison. Cuba bears little resemblance to North Korea. In any event, President Obama met with Raul Castro, but did not develop a really creepy man-crush on him; in fact, he made Castro look pretty foolish at their joint media appearance. Trump generally manages to look foolish, and Kim seems to make the most of that.

              • Submitted by Don Wallen on 10/28/2019 - 08:06 pm.

                According to the military, there was no audio and the video was just heat signatures shown moving from above and identified by analysts as friend or foe. The head of the Joint Chiefs said he has no idea where Trump got his fantasy of Baghdadi “whimpering and crying”.

                • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/29/2019 - 08:38 am.

                  If joint chiefs used the word “fantasy” provide a link. This was not a drone strike; the target was pursued by boots on the ground. The President did not mention a recording. So many assumptions.

                  • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/29/2019 - 04:29 pm.

                    The President said that he was “getting full reports on literally a minute-by-minute basis. ‘Sir, we just broke in. Sir, the wall is down. Sir, you know, we’ve captured. Sir, two people are coming out right now. Hands up.’ ”

                    It’s another pile of Trump ordure. There were no body cameras being used. What he saw, if he was really watching, overhead surveillance footage that showed the heat signatures of the people on the ground.

                    So, once again, much of what he said is a lie. The Joint Chiefs did not, to my knowledge, say “fantasy,” so you can claim you were right.

          • Submitted by Connie Sullivan on 10/28/2019 - 02:56 pm.

            It’s good that the ISIS leader is dead.

            But, to say that “Trump gets Baghdadi” is hilariously wrong! Our Boy Donny came back from his golf resort at 4 p.m. to watch the video at 5 p.m. (Good thing there was no text to read; Trump refuses to read, but he’ll watch TV.)

            He had nothing to do with the military operation that took place, which in fact depended for its success on the Kurds he had abandoned–plus, of course, the US. intelligence services Trump has been bashing for almost three years as ineffective and his natural enemies.

          • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 10/28/2019 - 04:20 pm.

            Don’t recall Obama trying to undo everything that Bush did! Don’t recall Obama claiming to be a “stable genius”? Don’t recall Obama taking assistance from the Russians, Don’t recall Obama calling out individual citizens as “scum” don’t recall Obama being know as the president that lies 80-90% of the time, don’t recall Obama as the guy that has to take credit for every thing good and blame someone else for everything that didn’t go so good. Don’t recall Obama making LGBTQ 2nd class citizens, and on and on and on. The only Trump derangement syndrome is his supporters! PS: Cuba is ~ 40 miles from Florida, NK
            what 6000 from California! That is a hell of a difference, lots of Cuban Nationals in Florida, Not so many NK Nationals anywhere, maybe SK.
            Why do you care about the media anyway, you got your 100% positive all the time Fox and Friends, Tucker C, Rush, etc. etc. etc. the rest is all fake anyway. Seems the thinking is, just report on what the dictator want to be Trumpeter wants you to. Yep feel sorry for private bone spurs born into a billionaire empire, life has been so tough! End of day he and his administration is corrupt as Putin and gang, but I guess for some folks that is really good stuff.

            • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/29/2019 - 05:26 am.

              Gay marriage. Obama either lied about it or deemed LGBTQ folks to be second class citizens. But you don’t recall.

              From Politico:


              • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/29/2019 - 09:05 am.

                I recall he changed his opinion, and publicly stated his opinion he had changed.

                It’s kind of like a certain infamous grifter who used to be pro-choice back in his days as a well-heeled libertine, but who now claims to be strongly opposed to abortion, probably because it’s what the yokels want to hear.

                • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/29/2019 - 09:36 am.

                  A very telling comment. The Americans that failed to fall in line, lock-step, with the liberals are yokels. The elitists will once again find that their condescendant attitudes will keep them out of the White House.

                  • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 10/29/2019 - 11:55 am.

                    I hardly think a few “condescendant” comments in reference to people who base their voting decisions solely on the abortion issue are really going to be the deciding factor in next year’s election.

                  • Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 10/29/2019 - 01:36 pm.

                    Condescending, like referring to folks as “Scum”, or perhaps an entire race as “rapists and murders”, or folks that report wrong doing inside the white house as “traitors” or democrats as “un-American and treasonous”, and on and on and on! Fall in line? Sure looks like where King Trump is with calling out the republicans for not being in lock step defending his lies and misdeeds.

                    • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/30/2019 - 07:52 am.

                      That is an unimpressive litany of anti-Trump talking points, none accompanied by a source. None needed, as they are all so widely believed and parroted. So many categories to choose from; I will take racism.

                      Did Trump say an entire race are rapists and murders? It seems the source of this claim is a statement from June 2015, while Trump was a presidential candidate. The context is people illegally crossing our southern border. He said, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have a lot of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

                      Seems like a very small subset of an entire race, since an entire race is not crossing our border, and some of those are assumed to be good people.

                    • Submitted by Brian Nelson on 10/30/2019 - 11:52 am.

                      Steve, since it is racism you are interested in it would seem then-candidate Trump’s attacking Gonzalo Curiel, the Indiana-born judge presiding over the case against Trump University, would be a pretty good example. Trump questioned Curiel’s impartiality because of his Mexican heritage.


          • Submitted by Bob Johnson on 10/30/2019 - 08:48 am.

            ‘when President Trump pulls troops from the middle east to spare American blood and treasure, it is a mistake.’

            Fact: Trump has added 14,000 troops in the Middle East since 1-1-19.

            You can form your own opinions, Mr. Rose, but not your own facts.

            • Submitted by Steve Rose on 10/30/2019 - 09:27 am.

              The context of my comment was the apoplectic response to the President’s announcement that he would pull troops from Syria. Yes, they will remain in the region to monitor the situation.

  9. Submitted by Misty Martin on 10/28/2019 - 12:53 pm.


    I love the way you tell it like it is – why can’t our politicians be more like that? So few are . . .

    I wish President Trump could/would read this article. If he could try to comprehend it even a little bit, it could help him immensely – that and of course the Bible, which he claims he loves, next to the “Art of the Deal”, of course. I doubt he’s ever really read either book.

  10. Submitted by Dennis Wagner on 10/30/2019 - 12:09 pm.

    So Steve, I suppose it was the fake news with fave recording and television at those Trump rally events that recorded all that stuff, and now deny it! Sorry dude, the world is not flat, and I’m not crazy, he said what he said, and you know it. There is nothign fake about it, you got took, fess up.

Leave a Reply