lazy big

I often wonder what motivates Trump to say the things that he says.

My latest theory is that he is just lazy (and obsessively needs the spotlight).

He is unwilling to put in the work to deeply understand an issue.  Instead he says the first thing that pops into his head and moves on.  If that’s true, it’s terrifying that he considers this sufficient to qualify him for the most powerful elected position in the country.

The first evidence of this laziness are the challenges his campaign is having during a period of time when Republicans are going to naturally dominate the airwaves.  Here are just a few examples.

  1. Opening night of the convention he scheduled a competitive lengthy prime time interview on the Golf Channel with David Feherty.
  2. Tuesday night his wife gave a speech that wasn’t properly vetted. The obvious plagiarism and the clumsy response by his campaign dominated the airwaves instead of the fact that he was formally nominated.
  3. Wednesday night Ted Cruz gets to speak and declines to endorse Trump and now all of the conversation is about dysfunction. How could that happen?
  4. Then today when Trump has the opportunity to speak to the convention, another careless interview with the NY Times comes out that embarrasses the Republican Party.

The NYT interview was a prime example of shallow lazy thinking.

  1. Trump suggests that the US may not honor its NATO commitments for the Balkan countries that border Russia unless they meet their financial commitments to the US. The first time he floated this idea four months ago, he got blasted.  He had four months to come up with a better answer.  He didn’t bother.  The result is that members of both parties, NATO, and our European allies have all expressed their concern – AGAIN.
  2. Trump seems to confuse military alliances with trade agreements. He argues that our existing trade deficits undermine any argument on strategic deployment of our military.  In other words, the world should be paying us to fill the role of the leader of the free world.  The corollary of course is that our allegiances are for sale to the highest bidder.
  3. Trump’s NAFTA answer is similarly shallow. He has a friend who is building a lot of plants in Mexico, so that must be bad for the country.  Trump could fill a room with policy experts on NAFTA, pick the one that he likes the best, and then reference his statistics.  Instead he simply repeats the story that new plants are being built in Mexico when they should be getting built in the US.
  4. When asked about cyber warfare as an alternative to military force, Trump basically said that he was “a fan of the future, and cyber is the future.”
  5. Finally, the NY Times interviewer asked Trump a made up question about Obama considering and no-first-use pledge regarding nuclear weapons. Obama has no such plan.  Rather than admit that he hadn’t heard about that, Trump made up an answer.  This is where Trump is really scary.  He is unwilling to admit what he doesn’t know, but he is running for a job where it is IMPOSSIBLE to know everything.  Experienced politicians have a stock answer when asked something that they don’t know.  They say that they don’t have an answer right now.  They ask if they can get back with you.  They defer to their staff.  They ask where the reporter heard that rumor.  They NEVER try to make up an answer on the spot on a subject that they haven’t been briefed on.  This isn’t a hard skill to learn for most people, but apparently it is one the Trump is unwilling to acquire.

Finally word came out of the John Kasich camp regarding the VP offer he received.  When asked what his duties would be, the interviewer said foreign and domestic policy.  Trump’s intent, if the reports are to be believed, is to delegate the running of the government to his VP.  Trump will fill the same role he does in his companies today, a figure head.

In other words, he is lazy.

62 Responses to “Lazy”

  1. Keith says:

    And this is the ugly side of the progressive movement. Achievement is out the window. The hate, more singularly focused, is on white males.

  2. Jeff Beamsley says:


    Picture was from February. Clinton moments before this photo slipped on the stairs.

    That’s why you don’t see crap like this being published by credible sources. You could have looked this up yourself before posting it. Why didn’t you?

    The only valid issue here is that neither Clinton or Trump have released their physicals. Clinton has released her tax returns. Trump hasn’t done that either.

  3. Jeff Beamsley says:

    More bunk.

    Right wing echo chamber attempting to discredit a parent whose son was killed while serving our country. You and they should be ashamed.

    Yes the father is an immigration lawyer. So what? If anything he is acting against his self interests by opposing Trump. If Trump makes it more difficult to get into this country, that’s MORE business for him.

    If you care, Bob Garfield of On the Media grills the Daily Caller on their hypocrisy regarding Khan.

    This is a great example of how the right wing echo chamber provides “support” when it appears that one of their own got into trouble. They make up stuff, share it among themselves to make it look like it is news, and reassure those inside the bubble that they are just fine and it is those “lying” liberals who are just up to their normal dirty tricks.

  4. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Please post something from a credible source.

    I’ve already condemned violence regardless of who has been practicing it.

    Really not interested in anything you post from sources like this. You also should know better. None of the right wing sources that you post from tell it “both ways”. That’s why they are unreliable.

  5. Jeff Beamsley says:

    And this is the ugly side of the progressive movement. Achievement is out the window. The hate, more singularly focused, is on white males.

    Please get over yourself and your hair trigger self-righteousness. The “ugly” side of the conservative movement is that an Op-Ed writer for CNN writes something you don’t like and all of a sudden he representing the progressive movement. I think it was an interesting suggestion, but it would have been just as interesting if Phelps shared his position with one of the paralympics participants, or a wounded vet, or a survivor of the Boston bombing, etc. Ultimately, I’m not sure that it was even Phelps choice anyway – anyway you are right he certainly earned the right to carry the flag.

  6. Jeff Beamsley says:

    I feel sorry for the man who spoke at the DNC. I wish more would get up and speak as he did. I was glad the DNC included him. I wish the circumstances would have been different under which he spoke.

    More crap from Newsbusters. They are trying to suggest liberal bias on this story because of the differences in coverage when they know full well that it was Trump’s REACTION that was the news.

    If Trump had reacted the same way the Clinton did to Pat Smith, it would not have been news.

    Here’s Clinton’s reaction.

    “I understand the grief and the incredible sense of loss that can motivate that,” Clinton said of Smith’s remarks on “Fox News Sunday.” “As other members of families who lost loved ones have said, that’s not what they heard. I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.”

    There wasn’t a firestorm of criticism from both parties to Clinton’s response because it was respectful even though Pat Smith’s claims regarding Clinton’s actions are not shared by the rest of the families that were at that same meeting.

    Also FOX was the only news channel NOT to air Pat Smith’s speech live. That’s because they were airing a live interview with Trump. So that also calls into question the whole issue of media bias.

    Trump made this mess himself by his obsessive attacks on anyone who he feels attacked him. The deep revulsion of 70%+ of the American public at his attacks on this family may turn out to be Trump’s “47%” comment.

    The polls have Clinton in a dominant position. A significant majority of the public now are questioning whether Trump has the temperament to be President. We are not talking about emails. We are talking about who is better qualified for the office and Trump is losing that battle big time.

    Obama did the same thing to McCain when McCain “blinked” after the stock market crash in 2008. Obama did the same thing to Romney suggesting he was out of touch with working class people.

    It is a powerful argument because the only way that Trump will be able to disprove it is to have a really stellar debate performance where he is focused, logical, and presidential (above the fray). If he tries to take that position, Clinton will have a factual field day because Trump has provided details on just a few of his proposals and those have been widely criticized.

  7. Jeff Beamsley says:

    you need to read this article to understand how difficult Trump’s current situation is.

    Go to the bottom of the article with the interactive map of the the various paths to get to 270 electoral votes.

    Unless things change dramatically between now and November, Trump has to win Florida in order to have any chance. Right now he is trailing in Florida by almost 3 points (RCP Average) with her trend up and his trend down.

    If he manages to win Florida, he also has to win Ohio or else Clinton wins. Ohio is a dead heat right now, but Kasich just said the Clinton will win his state.

    Next he has to win Georgia, where he currently has a small lead.

    Then he has to win NC or else Clinton wins. She has a small lead there.

    Then he has to win AZ or else Clinton wins. He has a small lead there.

    Then he has to win Iowa or else Clinton wins. She has a small lead there.

    Then he has to win Mississippi, where he has a 3 point lead.

    Then he has to win Nevada, where Clinton has a 2.3 point lead.

    Then he has to win New Mexico where Clinton has an 8 point lead. At this point if Clinton wins New Mexico and Trump as won all of the other states listed above, she also has to win NH in order to win. If Trump wins NH, the election is a tie and goes to the House. Clinton currently has a 7 point lead in NH.

    The bottom line right now is that Clinton has 1021 paths to victory at this point. Trump has the two that we described and one path ends in a tie.

    Combine that with the fact that Trump is currently on the defensive, is losing the support of key leaders in his party, and won’t really have another opportunity to right the ship until the September debates. Unless Clinton stumbles in some major way, it can only get worse for Trump for the next month or so.

    He may find himself in such a big hole by then that even a great debate performance won’t change the arithmetic. We’ll see.

  8. Jeff Beamsley says:

    Good article.

    Thanks for posting it.

    It will be interesting to see if Trump uses it in the debate. I think he is vulnerable on jobs too because of his history of stiffing his contractors and his string of bankruptcies where lots of service employees lost their jobs.

  9. Keith says:

    Here’s my point.. Link below to the NYT article.
    This is the heart of liberal media bias and the guy nails it.
    I get the point that Trump says absurd things and so frequently that
    they have to report. But Hillary says equally absurd things and she
    doesn’t get the same coverage. So to answer your comment above
    we are not talking about Hillary’s emails because the press doesn’t want to.
    After the Fox interview and her press conference the other day it should
    be front page above the fold news. She lied, told untruths. was reckless,
    and continues to lie about it….

    I am under no illusion that Trump is a great candidate. Who knows what kind
    of president he’ll be, in the unlikely event he wins. Maybe he’ll be a great
    President if democrats don’t riot and burn down the country after his election.

    Here’s my favorite paragraph from the article.

    Covering Mr. Trump as an abnormal and potentially dangerous candidate is more than just a shock to the journalistic system. It threatens to throw the advantage to his news conference-averse opponent, Hillary Clinton, who should draw plenty more tough-minded coverage herself. She proved that again last week with her assertion on Fox News Sunday that James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had declared her to be truthful in her answers about her decision to use a private email server for official State Department business — a grossly misleading interpretation ofan F.B.I. report that pointed up various falsehoods in her public explanations.

    SO if this guy at the times sees it where is EVERY MAJOR NEWS OUTLET calling her all the things
    they call Trump? It seems THEY are deciding who is more dangerous. They have no problem
    describing Trump as “erratic” or “dangerous,” etc., after the mention of his name but do not include
    the words “liar,” or equivalent, after every mention of hers….

    I know you disregard social media and the news there is garbage but way way WAY more people get their news and options from there. I have over 2,000 friends on face book and I can tell you the amount of garage spewed from there is very real… The influence is far greater then you might assume.

  10. Jeff Beamsley says:

    This is a great article.

    Thanks for posting it.

    I get the point that Trump says absurd things and so frequently that
    they have to report. But Hillary says equally absurd things and she
    doesn’t get the same coverage. So to answer your comment above
    we are not talking about Hillary’s emails because the press doesn’t want to.

    Clinton DOES say some absurd things, but they are not equal – at least not in quantity.

    The press did talk about Clinton’s emails and they DID talk about her characterization of her responses to Comey. Those were ALL in the news. But they got pushed OUT of the news by a whole barrage of Trump statements during that same period of time. If Trump could manage to stay on message for a week, his prospects would improve. But he can’t.

    Instead of letting Clinton’s gaffe ripen in the sun, he (in historical order over the past week)
    1. attacked the Khans
    2. suggested that the NFL sent him a letter complaining about the debate dates (NFL said it sent no such letter)
    3. claimed that Russia would not invade Ukraine only to have to backtrack when informed that they already did in 2014
    4. criticized a fire marshal in Columbus because he disagreed with enforcement of the occupancy code
    5. praised Paul Ryan’s primary opponent
    6. told a woman with a crying baby to leave his rally
    7. accepted a Purple Heart from a vet with the statement, “I always wanted to get the Purple Heart, this was much easier.”, this less than a day after the NYT published a piece on his Viet Nam draft dodging
    8. refused to endorse Ryan, McCain, and Ayotte (he backtracked on this too later in the week)
    9. claimed that the November elections would be rigged against him
    10. claimed to have seen top secret Iranian video of money being unloaded from a plane in Iran when what he actually saw was publicly available video shot in Switzerland that had nothing to do with delivery of money to Iran, his campaign corrected him, and he repeated the lie again.

    That’s just in the week following Clinton’s mistake regarding the email investigation.

    It would have irresponsible for the press not to report on all of these things, and THAT was part of the author’s message.

    Your confirmation bias appears to have caused you to completely miss it. You thought it was admission of liberal media bias. It was exactly the opposite.

    The three paragraphs after the one that you posted are the summary that you ignored.

    Paragraph 1

    And, most broadly, it upsets balance, that idealistic form of journalism with a capital “J” we’ve been trained to always strive for.

    The author is stating that ETHICAL journalists do strive for balance in their coverage. He is admitting that the current coverage is not balanced and that bothers him.

    Paragraph 2

    But let’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy. For the primaries and caucuses, the imbalance played to his advantage, captured by the killer statistic of the season: His nearly $2 billion in free media was more than six times as much as that of his closest Republican rival.

    Trump deliberately created this imbalance. It is the result of his strategy/obsession.
    It worked spectacularly well in the primary season and helped him win the nomination. The fact that the media failed to provide balanced coverage of all of the Republican candidates didn’t seem to bother you then. You didn’t call out the “liberal media” for bias during the primaries. The only folks who were complaining were the other candidates, and for good reason.

    Paragraph 3

    Now that he is the Republican nominee for president, the imbalance is cutting against him. Journalists and commentators are analyzing his policy pronouncements and temperament with an eye toward what it would all look like in the Oval Office — something so many of them viewed as an impossibility for so long.

    Trump’s strategy is now backfiring. That is not the fault of the media (liberal or otherwise). It is Trump’s fault. First he created an audience interested in EVERYTHING he said. Second, many of the things that he has said raise the question of whether he is able to act “presidential”.

    We also have a perfect example. Two parents who have lost kids in combat each speak at a convention. The first talks about her child’s death in Libya and blames it on Clinton. The second talks about his child’s death in Iraq and questions Trump’s immigration policies.

    Both stories and the candidates responses were covered in the press.

    Clinton acknowledged the woman’s grief, praised her son, stated the fact that others also present at the meetings that she had with the families of those killed did not provide the same accounts as she did, but that she bore the grieving mother no ill will. Even though the mother continues to make campaign appearances for Trump, this story has become a footnote to the Republican convention.

    Trump attacked the parents in numerous different ways. Did not initially acknowledge the heroism of their son, suggested that the mother’s silence had something to do with Muslim law, and then tried to pivot the whole thing to Radical Islamic Terrorism. The firestorm that this created across the political spectrum is still burning. It has led to articles recently detailing Trump’s efforts to avoid the Viet Nam draft. It has raised questions about his sanity. It elevated the Khan’s to media celebrities.

    You can suggest that this is the media somehow ganging up on Trump (more on that in a minute), but if Trump had responded in the same way that Clinton did, there would have been no story. The story was NOT the comments by the Khan family. The story was, as it almost always is, Trump’s REACTION to the Khan family claims.

    This brings us to the conclusion of this article, which I believe indicates why the NYT is a wonderful paper.

    The article could have ended at the last paragraph that I posted and been fine. But the author had one more question to answer. That question is how should a responsible journalist respond when faced with someone they feel is a danger to the country?

    His answer is two-fold.

    This, however, is what being taken seriously looks like. As Mr. Ryan put it to me, Mr. Trump’s candidacy is “extraordinary and precedent-shattering” and “to pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous with readers.”

    In other words, the first responsibility is to find out all of the facts about a candidate. That process of discovery is going to naturally produce more information about Trump than it will Clinton because Clinton has BEEN through this process several times.

    It may not always seem fair to Mr. Trump or his supporters. But journalism shouldn’t measure itself against any one campaign’s definition of fairness. It is journalism’s job to be true to the readers and viewers, and true to the facts, in a way that will stand up to history’s judgment. To do anything less would be untenable.

    Journalists owe their readers the truth, as best as they can determine. If they feel in their best judgment that a particularly candidate is unqualified for the office they seek, then they should feel free to make their case. Anything less would be unethical.

    This is a breathtaking statement that cuts right to the core of what it means to have a free press. They are our defense against tyrants, dictators, and mob rule.

    When Trump says that he plans to reduce some of the protections that allow us to have a press that can freely criticize those in power, papers like the NYT, the Wash Post, and the Christian Science Monitor take notice. They report how dangerous that concept is, not because they are protecting their bottom line. It’s because they take their responsibility seriously.

  11. Keith says:

    Jeff my good friend of now probably a decade. Mark this date. I mostly sure r the point above to you.

    What I don’t surrender however is choosing who is dangerous. Hillary in my view for reason not needing stated again, is dangerous as well. The NYT’s doesn’t need to choose who’s the most dangerous. The Washington Post is calling for Trump to drop out yet won’t ask Hillary to. Her emails and the Clinton foundation, a bomb yet to fully explode that everyone knows is coming, are reason enough for them to call for the same from her if they simply followed along and explored.

    However I seed the pint on most of your last response.

Leave a Reply