President Trump In Time Of Tragedy: A Horrific Leader, Unable To Express Deep Mourning And True Compassion

Donald Trump is truly the most horrific leader possible in time of tragedy, unable to express deep mourning and true compassion and empathy.

Think of Ronald Reagan and the Challenger Astronaut Disaster in 1986.

Think of Bill Clinton and the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995.

Think of George W. Bush after September 11, 2001.

Think of Barack Obama after the Charleston Church Massacre in 2015, and the Sandy Hook School Massacre in 2012.

These and many other disasters are times when we look to leaders to act appropriately, and we see Presidents of both parties and all philosophies know how to act.

Not so with Donald Trump, who instead:

Throws paper towels in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria, and threatens to cut off funding for the island.

Shows up at an inappropriate time after the Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre, when funerals for the victims are being held.

Comes to Paradise, California, after the most disastrous fire in modern history, and refers to the town as “Pleasure”, of all names.

His body language and facial expressions show he does not give a damn, and he does not know how to console and hug and show a dose of empathy and compassion.

Rather, he is going through the motions, more staging an appearance so he can draw attention to himself than anything else.

Donald Trump proves again, and again, and again, and again, that he is a horrible human being, a disgrace to the American Presidency, who deserves none of our compassion as he faces the challenge of a Democratic House of Representatives ready with subpoenas and investigations galore, which will stress him out in massive ways.

It could not happen to a “better” person.

55 comments on “President Trump In Time Of Tragedy: A Horrific Leader, Unable To Express Deep Mourning And True Compassion

  1. Ronald November 23, 2018 9:05 pm

    Thanks, D, for these articles!

  2. Princess Leia November 23, 2018 9:50 pm

    Trump is scum!

  3. Pragmatic Progressive November 23, 2018 10:20 pm

    It’s not right wing populism. It’s fascism repeating itself.

  4. Rustbelt Democrat November 24, 2018 12:54 pm

    Exactly Pragmatic! Rump and other far right extremists who have come to power around the world are using the same bigoted language that Hitler and Mussolini used. We liberals, a.k,a., progressives, must fight back by stressing about inclusion, kindness, etc.

  5. Ronald November 24, 2018 1:01 pm

    Yes, Inclusion and Kindness are the motto of progressives, and always have been!

  6. D November 25, 2018 9:12 am

    Pragmatic Progressive writes, “It’s not right wing populism. It’s fascism repeating itself.”

    From 2016, it was populism in the Trump campaign. In the Hillary campaign, it was about how awful Trump was in his behavior. Two years after Trump defeated Hillary, too many—mainly ones who are loyal Democratic voters—still don’t understand how he won.

    Rustbelt Democrat writes, “We liberals, a.k,a., progressives, must fight back by stressing about inclusion, kindness, etc.”

    That isn’t going to unseat Trump.

    What is the vision of a Democratic Party—whose most influential are clinging to neoliberalism (in spite of what that has done to displaced workers; and that we have 50 percent of employed workers earning $30,000 or less per year)—to move in a truly bold and progressive direction? (It isn’t happening with the Democrats—the faction which runs this political party—because, frankly, they’re not serious. Many of them are actually good with President Trump.)

  7. Princess Leia November 25, 2018 11:50 am

    D – You weren’t paying attention in 2016 and you’re still not paying attention now.

  8. Rustbelt Democrat November 25, 2018 12:13 pm

    Reposting The Excellent Article About The Democratic Message:

    The 2020 Democratic Presidential Nominee Will Tell a Story of Inclusion
    I am someone who tends to shy away from making predictions because there are too many factors at play in politics to go out on a limb and pretend that we can tell people what is going to happen in the future. But I feel totally confident in predicting one thing: any Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2020 who buys into the framing of the race as described by David Von Drehle is going to lose spectacularly, as well they should.
    The axiom that parties define themselves through the process of choosing a candidate has never been more true. Democratic identity is up for grabs…Is this the party of working stiffs or the party of Harvard and Apple? Is it a party of the left or a centrist party? Is it the party for women and minorities, or do white guys still hold some sway? Such questions will be the undercurrents of the race…
    That is a perfect example of the kind of divisive politics that I recently suggested should be left to the Republicans. Pitting working stiffs against Harvard and Apple represents the kind of attack on “elitism” that is so in vogue these days. But it’s really just nonsense. While fighting to ensure that the ladders to opportunity are available to everyone, Democrats can welcome the highly educated and the pioneers of the technology industry into their ranks with open arms.
    When Von Drehle refers to an identity crisis related to being a left or centrist party, I have to wonder what he’s talking about. As we saw during the 2018 midterm elections, the marquee Democratic candidates tended to run on very progressive platforms. But pretty much everything they championed—raising the minimum wage, improving access to health care, common sense gun safety reforms, attacking climate change, comprehensive immigration reform, etc.—is supported overwhelmingly by American voters. The only disagreement on those issues among Democrats is about the pace of reform that is possible at any given point in time. That hardly qualifies as a center/left disagreement.
    The real tell about where Von Drehle is coming from shows up when he frames the last question as one about whether women and minorities will dominate, or if white guys will still hold some sway. That is reminiscent of the old saying about, “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” Democrats who are standing up to ensure that everyone gets a seat at the table are not suggesting that white men lose theirs. If necessary, they’ll just build a bigger table.
    As I contemplate these three either/or scenarios, I can’t help but think of the campaigns run by Beto O’Rourke, Stacey Abrams, and Andrew Gillum. It is true that none of them were ultimately successful, but they made historic progress in states where Democrats have been failing for decades. I believe that one of the reasons they did so is that they rejected the divisions articulated by Von Drehle as old arguments that have done nothing but hurt Democrats.
    Back in early 2016, Jon Favreau wrote something important.
    Every election is a competition between two stories about America. And Trump already knows his by heart: He is a celebrity strongman who will single-handedly save the country from an establishment that is too weak, stupid, corrupt, and politically correct to let us blame the real source of our problems—Muslims and Mexicans and Black Lives Matter protesters; the media, business, and political elites from both parties. Trump’s eventual opponent will need to tell a story about America that offers a powerful rebuke to the demagogue’s dark vision for the future.
    What made the campaigns of Gillum, Abrams, and O’Rourke so compelling is that they offered “a powerful rebuke to the demagogue’s dark vision for the future.” At a time when Donald Trump and Republicans have nothing but divisiveness to offer the country, the most compelling story Democrats can tell America is the hopeful one about inclusion. I predict that the person who best captures that narrative will be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020.

  9. D November 25, 2018 12:36 pm

    “The Guardian” had a follow-up with Hillary Clinton:

    ‘Hillary Clinton: Europe must curb immigration to stop rightwing populist’

    By Patrick Wintour, November 22, 2018

    “Europe must get a handle on immigration to combat a growing threat from rightwing populists, Hillary Clinton has said, calling on the continent’s leaders to send out a stronger signal showing they are ‘not going to be able to continue to provide refuge and support’.”

  10. Former Republican November 25, 2018 12:36 pm

    I’ve been rather busy lately, so it’s been a while since I last posted.

    I think that Hillary’s “deplorable” remarks might have hurt her with some potential swing voters.

    I think that the media is partially to blame for 2016. Studies done show that Trump got more coverage than Hillary. When the media covered Hillary, it was more about her emails than her policies.

    I definitely think Russia played a role in swaying low-information voters.

  11. Former Republican November 25, 2018 12:39 pm

    Agree with you about that article, Rustbelt.

  12. Pragmatic Progressive November 25, 2018 1:07 pm

    Agreed, Former Republican. There were multiple reasons why Hillary lost and not all of it was her fault.

    Rustbelt – I also second about that article being excellent.

  13. Southern Liberal November 25, 2018 1:28 pm

    2016 was about voting for two different visions of America. Trump was offering America of 1950. Hillary and the Democratic party were offering America of 2050. Obviously some voters stupidly wanted to go back to the past instead of moving into the future.

  14. Princess Leia November 25, 2018 2:41 pm

    You nailed it Southern Liberal!

  15. Rustbelt Democrat November 25, 2018 3:16 pm

    D – It’s as I said before. Rump doesn’t care about minimum wage, affordable healthcare, fighting climate change, etc. All he care about is enriching himself and stirring up a culture war.

  16. Southern Liberal November 25, 2018 5:59 pm

    I think it’s like a child has to touch a stove to learn that it’s hot. Sometimes we have to go through a Trump or a Bush or Nixon for some voters to learn that their votes have bad consequences.

  17. Princess Leia November 25, 2018 10:10 pm

    Southern Liberal – The thing is, their bad voting choices affect the rest of us.

  18. D November 25, 2018 11:39 pm

    Following that interview in “The Guardian” is this excellent critique:

    ‘Hillary Clinton’s chilling pragmatism gives the far right a free pass’

    By Nesrine Malik, November 23, 2018

    “Ever since Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump in 2016, her insistence on staying in the public eye has been viewed with a particular kind of intolerance. Some on the right have turned her into a symbol of everything they hate, to be demonised at their rallies. Others, on the left, abhor her refusal to cede space to a newer generation, hanging in the air like a bad smell, a constant memory of the moment it all went wrong. But Hillary Clinton will not go away, and that is a very good thing. Not because she should remain on the scene, fighting the good fight against the forces of reaction, but because with every interview and public appearance she is revealing in the most helpful way the pointlessness of her politics.

    “In an interview with [‘The Guardian’] as part of its series the new populism, the former presidential candidate illustrated how a certain brand of centrist politician has no rebuke or response to the far right other than to mimic their tactics. On the issue of immigration in Europe, she called on the continent’s leaders to erect the barricades.”

  19. Ronald November 26, 2018 5:46 am

    I totally agree with you on this, D, very disturbed by Hillary, and time for her to recede into the background, but unlikely to occur, sadly!

  20. Rational Lefty November 26, 2018 12:14 pm

    Agreed with the others. D definitely still does not get it.

    Numerous studies have been done showing that 2016 was about cultural anxiety more so than economic anxiety.

    One of the pundits we read, correctly calls Trump’s base nostalgia voters, because they want the culture of the 1950s back, as you can read in this article.

    She nails what we have been talking about!

  21. Princess Leia November 26, 2018 4:43 pm

    The Guardian can have some good news articles but, like any other media source, my family and I don’t always agree with their opinion articles.

  22. D November 26, 2018 4:43 pm

    Ronald writes, “I totally agree with you on this, D, very disturbed by Hillary, and time for her to recede into the background, but unlikely to occur, sadly!”

    I think you are correct.

  23. Rustbelt Democrat November 26, 2018 6:46 pm

    Speaking of immigration, Rump had his Gestapo fire tear gas on kids at the border yesterday.

  24. Princess Leia November 26, 2018 6:52 pm

    They don’t like that Ms. LeTourneau is expressing the truth.

  25. Pragmatic Progressive November 26, 2018 6:56 pm

    D – She’s not the only author at Washington Monthly we like. Martin Longman is another one we read a lot.

  26. Pragmatic Progressive November 26, 2018 7:11 pm

    One of Martin Longman’s latest post regarding 2020.

    It’s Not About Centrism vs. Progressivism

    Matt Taibbi makes one unassailable point in his latest piece for Rolling Stone. Whenever the Republicans lose they say that their candidates were insufficiently conservative and whenever the Democrats lose the media say that the party needs to move to the middle. Because the Democratic Party leadership tends to listen to the media while the Republican leadership tends to listen to their own propaganda, the result is an inexorable march of American politics to the right. Beyond that, though, his long essay is a tiresome exercise in setting up a false dichotomy based on the flimsy premise that “Big Ideas” are the answer for everything.

    t’s fair to question if the media have any real grasp of what defines “the middle” or what the American people really want. It’s fair to argue that the Democrats have tried to move to the middle in the past and have had uneven results at best. But one thing the party knows about losing campaigns is that the losers needed to get more votes from somewhere. If not from the middle, then from fringes or the apathetic. If not from cities, then from the suburbs. If not from the suburbs, then from the small towns and rural areas. If not from men, then from women. If not from the young, then from the old. If not from Florida, then from Michigan and Wisconsin.

    n 2016, Hillary Clinton sought to run up the score in the affluent and well-educated suburbs and she succeeded. The Democrats built on that success in 2017 to make huge gains in Virginia and take back the governor’s mansion in New Jersey. They built on it again in 2018 to win back the House of Representatives. As far as I can tell, though, this hasn’t really been as much a carefully calibrated success based on political messaging as a natural revolt of the educated and civil against whatever you want to call Trumpism.

    It appears that Democratic candidates could use almost any message in the 2018 midterms and win provided that the state or district was at least somewhat invested in the idea that reality has a factual basis. On the other hand, if the education level of the state or district fell below a certain point, the Democrat could curse Pelosi as the devil and call their own party a bunch of loons or pitch Medicare-for-All and the abolition of ICE and none of it would make a lick of difference. They were going to lose.

    This isn’t the kind of 50-50 split any healthy country should want to see. In 2020, it’s quite possible that a Democratic contender will figure out how to get the 200,000 or so additional votes Clinton needed in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania to win the presidency, but that won’t make them some kind of genius, give them some kind of mandate, or reconcile the other half of the country to their term in office. And I don’t think this changes at all based on the formula the candidate uses to succeed.

    Maybe they’ll win by dominating by even larger margins in the suburbs, or maybe they’ll get more disaffected people to engage. Maybe they’ll dominate the gender gap, winning women by an insurmountable margin. Maybe they excite the base to a greater degree than their opponents. If it results in some tiny victory then nothing much is going to get done and very little is going to change.

    Winning is enormously better than losing, and you can look to the makeup of the federal courts if you need any proof of this, but trading turns stuffing the judicial branch with partisans isn’t going to lead us out of this mess. The only solution in sight will require the kind of thumping Nixon gave McGovern or Reagan gave Mondale. If the public cannot be convinced to repudiate Trumpism with at least the same conviction that they rejected Herbert Hoover, then everyone in this country, and not just the Democratic Party, will have failed, and failed miserably.

    Try as I might, I can’t envision “The Big Idea” that would really help make this happen. (But our editor-in-chief Paul Glastris outlined a few this summer.)

    Here’s what I know.

    For the party of the left to win a landslide presidential election, they will need to present something that at least gives permission to a lot of people to support them who have powerful reasons and a long history of withholding support. Hillary Clinton couldn’t do that. It’s possible someone else can.

    The best argument against Trumpism is the man and the results. In no way can this be described as “A Big Idea.” It’s more of a basic idea. The best coalition against Trump is the biggest coalition against Trump, and that means a movement that is ideologically flexible and culturally welcoming.

    That doesn’t really have anything to do with progressivism versus centrism, but it does mean arguing over, e.g., single-payer versus the public option is a diversion from the mission. People disagree about that stuff, but they can find consensus on their desire for a return to normalcy and a government based on some semblance of competency and sanity.

    People care about issues and they’re going to fight for them. There’s nothing wrong with that at all, but over the next two years anyone fighting over the best plan for raising the minimum wage or paying for free college is engaged in a battle that has nothing whatsoever to do with building the biggest possible movement against Trump.

    If this country has anything left worth saving, the Democrats will run Trump out of office on a rail long before Election Day in 2020. Maybe they’ll be fighting the smoking husk of a Pence administration by then. Either way, the Democratic Party should have the opportunity to bring together a much bigger coalition than anything seen since FDR was in office. But they will need someone who is seen as acceptable by a large number of people who do not consider themselves on the left in any ordinary sense.

    One thing the success of Trump’s campaign has shown us is that ideology is overrated as a political vote-getter, as is the idea that candidates can’t violate taboos. That doesn’t mean that ideas don’t matter, but it does mean that it makes little sense to say that our choice is between progressivism and centrism. There’s nothing inherently centrist about running an inclusive non-ideological campaign. There are plenty of non-threatening progressive ideas that the vast majority of citizens can agree with, whether they’re concerned about the climate or gun violence or the health of their local economy.

    Taibbi summed up his argument this way:
    Something as dangerous as Trumpism isn’t going to be defeated by catch-phrases and political marketing tricks. The best bet is big ideas, and no matter what the talking heads on cable say, moving to the center — again — probably won’t cut it.

    I think that’s all wrong. On the cynical front, it’s hard to see how anyone could see the success of Trump as anything but catch-phrases and marketing, so the most obvious answer is to do a better job of it than he does. On a more serious front, the only big idea that matters is that something has gone desperately wrong and it needs to be corrected. People agree on that and not much else. The job is to collect those people from wherever the Democrats can, and a lot of those people are in the center or even to the right-of-center. That doesn’t mean that the Democrats should all become Blue Dogs. The Blue Dogs went nearly extinct for a reason. But it means that the winning approach isn’t going to be to find the candidate who warms the hearts of the most ardent progressives with a language that appeals only to them.

    The times call for a unifying leader, and if they understand what’s wrong with Trumpism then they’ll be someone that can be trusted to get the job done. If they get the message right, they can probably be as progressive as they want to be.

  27. Southern Liberal November 26, 2018 7:30 pm

    According to my dictionary, liberal means having political or social views favoring reform and progress. That’s why we use liberal and progressive interchangeably, because they are basically synonyms.

  28. Pragmatic Progressive November 26, 2018 8:04 pm

    Thanks for that Former Republican. That definitely puts things into perspective.

  29. Southern Liberal November 26, 2018 8:57 pm

    Mueller investigation is another reason why I think Trump’s chances of winning in 2020 are lessened.

  30. D November 27, 2018 12:23 am

    Pragmatic Progressive writes, “D – She’s not the only author at Washington Monthly we like. Martin Longman is another one we read a lot.”

    That was not my point.

  31. D November 27, 2018 12:58 am

    Former Republican writes, “Folks, socialists are using the term ‘neoliberal’ as an insult term.”


    The “insult,” as Jonathan Chait writes, is that people recognize it is a big problem.

    Jonathan Chait, himself, is a neoliberal.

    Here is neoliberalism: .

    Here are some past writings from the neoliberal Jonathan Chait:

    More about Jonathan Chait:

  32. Rustbelt Democrat November 27, 2018 8:58 am

    Former Republican – Thanks for that important information.

    In today’s news, GM is laying off workers. So much for Rump being a “job creator”. LOL!

  33. Pragmatic Progressive November 27, 2018 9:36 am

    D – Our family and friends are the biggest influence on our politics, more so than writers. They are like we are, more towards the middle than on the fringes. You have to accept that not every Democrat you encounter on a blog is not on the far left.

  34. Pragmatic Progressive November 27, 2018 9:50 am

    To second what Southern Liberal said, we use liberal and progressive interchangeably, as they ARE synonyms.

  35. Princess Leia November 27, 2018 5:05 pm

    D – We live in a Red area of our state. The area has been Red for several decades, as a lot of the voters in the area are die-hard Republicans. For a Democrat to win anything locally (school board, town council, etc.) in our area, the best chance for him or her is to either be a moderate or even be a conservative.

  36. D November 28, 2018 2:08 am

    Princess Leia writes, “D – We live in a Red area of our state. The area has been Red for several decades, as a lot of the voters in the area are die-hard Republicans. For a Democrat to win anything locally (school board, town council, etc.) in our area, the best chance for him or her is to either be a moderate or even be a conservative.”

    I have lost track. In which area do you live? I don’t want to ask anything too specific, like your congressional district. But, can you say which county?

  37. Rational Lefty November 28, 2018 12:12 pm

    We’re in the southern part of Virginia. Our area is primarily rural farmland with a few small towns like Mayberry.

  38. D November 29, 2018 4:27 pm

    Princess Leia writes, “[‘The Guardian’] can have some good news articles but, like any other media source, my family and I don’t always agree with their opinion articles.”

    Rustbelt Democrat writes, “There’s news that Manafort may have had meetings with Julian Assange. If true, it’s a bridge in the collusion investigation.” [Provides link to a “Guardian” piece.]

    * * * * *

    ‘Assange Never Met Manafort. Luke Harding and the Guardian Publish Still More Blatant MI6 Lies’

    By Craig Murray, November 27, 2018

    “The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6 mouthpiece Luke Harding of [‘The Guardian’].”

  39. D November 29, 2018 4:35 pm

    In December 2017, “The Real News’s” Aaron Maté interviewed “The Guardian’s” Luke Harding with the timing of that latter’s book, “Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win.”

  40. Rustbelt Democrat November 29, 2018 5:28 pm

    Mueller is knocking down Rump’s wall of lies! 🙂

  41. Pragmatic Progressive November 29, 2018 7:47 pm

    Other news sources are reporting about the penthouse for Putin now.

    It’s very obvious Trump is knee deep in Russians.

  42. Rustbelt Democrat November 30, 2018 8:33 am

    Considering that Manafort lied to Mueller, I find the Guardian’s report to be very likely to be true.

  43. Princess Leia December 15, 2018 7:09 pm

    NBC News has a report about Brexit and how it will negatively affect the border with Northern Ireland, possibly cause violence there again. Whether you call it “populism”, “nationalism”, or whatever, it’s ruining the world in a bad way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.