This is actually typical Trump, he impulsively suggests a ‘feel good’ measure, but then reconsiders after trusted experts weigh in. It is not, as the Pilot spins it, a political consideration. He simply has the flexibility to change his mind when presented with good advice.
President Trump reconsiders new gun control measures.
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
I think you’re giving him too much credit. It seems like he just vomits out the first thing that pops into his head and then his handlers have to walk it back to bring him in line with the donors.
I don’t think he has a politics at all–just his own megalomania and petty grievances.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Well he does rely on his “gut” so you may have a valid point.
Trump wants to stay in the spotlight. He said a month or so ago at a White House meeting with conspiracy weavers that his tweets used to take off like rockets. He lamented that has not been the case lately.
So they are getting more and more outrageous. That probably includes getting the attention of the gun lobby so they would send their champion to meet personally. Just more media attention.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A personal audience with LaPierre is not a political consideration?
The NRA boasts about owning politicians by virtue of destroying those who don’t kiss its ring. Even in the midst of outrageous financial scandals and infighting, LaPierre is still a formidable political force.
Only about 90% of the country, including a majority of Republicans want better and tighter background checks. But the hell with them, the “NRA has spoken”.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Funny how you refer to Trump’s change of heart on background checks as “flexibility”. When a Democrat does that, it is called “flip-flopping”.
In 2018, Chuck Schumer presented a bipartisan agreement on immigration and Trump was onboard with it. In less than 24 hours, after being told by “his” news network that he would appear weak to his base if he accepted the deal, and Stephen Miller, the Immigration Whisperer”, advising him not to do it, Trump, again showed his “flexibility”. The same thing has now occurred on this debate.
Flexibility is a good thing, especially in a leadership position. Getting new and sometimes better information is always a good thing. But to not call Trump’s “flexibility” a political decision is disingenuous.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course this is just another spineless flip-flop. The claim that it is a sign of “flexibility” is simply ludicrous.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Taken from the NYT reporting on the phone call between Trump and Lapierre, which again lays waste to the idea that Trump’s “flexibility” “It is not, as the Pilot spins it, a political consideration.”
“The president’s remarks also demonstrated how the N.R.A., which spent $30 million on Mr. Trump’s campaign in 2016 and stuck with him when other Republicans wavered in their support, still wields great influence over the White House, even as its own future is in question. The organization has been mired in investigations into its finances by two attorneys general, in New York and Washington, as well as a legal battle with its former advertising firm and calls from its own board members for change.”
LikeLike
RE: “It is not, as the Pilot spins it…”
I agree. The Pilot article is a tour de force of spin (propaganda). One statement in particular illustrates:
“His latest retreat reflects…his desire for adulation from the crowds that pack his rallies…”
That statement is not even close to being factual or provable. Technically, it is an assertion without substantiation, but as a matter of simple common sense it amounts to mere mind reading.
But, regrettably, it is not an isolated spin. There are others.
The Pilot should have labeled the article as analysis. It is in structure and execution a commentary, not a report.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually the article was from the LA Times.
It does read more as analysis than reportage.
Trump does constantly harp about crowd sizes and how his are bigger than anyone else’s. May we can’t read his mind, but we can read his statements and tweets.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it was a fair and well balanced “analysis” that simply called out what most people see and hear as being obvious. If the wind changes direction he feels the coolness on his wet finger and pivots again (and again, and again). Leadership at its worse…..
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I think it was a fair and well balanced “analysis” that simply called out what most people see and hear as being obvious.”
Were the piece labelled “analysis” I might agree. Without proper labelling, however, it qualifies by definition as “fake news.”
I get it that one of the tenets of the new journalism holds that a news story can contain some editorializing as a means of providing context and significance to the facts being reported, but I find the practice dishonest. In this case, the writer presented opinion as fact. That should be out of bounds.
LikeLike
Interesting; I reread the article and had no problem determining the context/editorial comments from the numerous quotes and facts presented. I’ll stick by the “obvious” part of my comment.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In reading through the article, that appears to be the one paragraph that could be considered “analysis” by the reporter. The rest of the article quotes a lot of different people on the situation, both pro- and anti-Trump. To dismiss the reporting as “fake news” because ONE PARAGRAPH (out of 32), (which from my viewpoint is pretty darned accurate) was a bit of analysis, that you disagree with is disingenuous and short-sighted.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think what frequently happens when there are no substantive arguments to be made is to pic a nit to distract from the main point(s) being made.
LikeLiked by 3 people
RE: “I think what frequently happens when there are no substantive arguments to be made is to pic a nit to distract from the main point(s) being made.”
No nit picking here. Of 1200 words, I count roughly 400 devoted to making non-factual, editorial style statements. Using a different measurement, I count 28 of 64 lines of text devoted to non-factual, editorial commentary. Thus, from 1/3 to 1/2 of the piece is something other than straight reporting.
Following are my assessments of the 28 lines I consider non-factual:
2 lines: “powerful pro-gun groups have sent President Donald Trump a clear signal — don’t forget that we helped put you in the White House.”
Assessment: Unsubstantiated interpretation.
1 line: “no one has proposed that drastic remedy [confiscation] on Capitol Hill.”
Assessment: Misleading. At least two members of Congress running for president have endorsed versions of gun confiscation.
1 line: “Trump, a native New Yorker who lacks a personal affinity for guns”
Assessment: Speculation/mind reading.
1 line: “he fears upsetting his hard-core Republican supporters”
Assessment: Speculation/mind reading.
2 lines: “‘Donald Trump has looked into the abyss of destroying his base and decided that isn’t something he wants to do,’ said Mike Hammond”
Assessment: Opinion.
1 line: “Trump has been particularly wary of alienating his base.”
Assessment: Speculation/mind reading.
1 line: “His latest retreat reflects not only his desire for adulation from the crowds that pack his rallies”
Assessment: Speculation/mind reading.
1 line: “‘Without the support of gun owners, it’s unlikely that Donald Trump would ever have been elected,’ said Adam Winkler”
Assessment: Opinion.
1 line: “As the horrors sunk in, Trump addressed the nation from the White House on Aug. 5.”
Assessment: Unnecessary color/interpretation.
1 line: “Activists argued that while public opinion polls show background checks for gun sales are extremely popular…”
Assessment: Unsourced/uncorroborated/unsubstantiated (i.e., the polls might be wrong).
2 lines: “The NRA has tried to point the president toward policies that could satisfy his desire to take some action worthy of a Rose Garden ceremony, without upsetting his pro-gun supporters.”
Assessment: Unsourced. Speculation/mind reading.
2 lines: “They also called for stricter enforcement of existing laws, pointing to a standoff in Philadelphia last week where six police officers were wounded with an assault-style rifle.”
Assessment: Unsourced.
1 line: “Lobbying the president has required navigating Trump family politics.”
Assessment: Unsourced. Speculation/mind reading.
2 lines: “‘The president’s son has a lot stiffer spine on the gun issue than the president, and I think a better handle on it,’ said Dudley Brown…”
Assessment: Opinion.
1 line: “Pro-gun groups were hesitant to declare victory this week…”
Assessment: Unsourced. Speculation/mind reading.
2 lines: “Trump’s critics cited a similar cycle after a gunman killed 17 students and teachers at a high school in Parkland, Fla., in February 2018.”
Assessment: Unsourced. Opinion.
1 line: “at this point, it’s hard to see Congress passing, or the president signing, any new legislation.”
Assessment: Unsourced. Opinion.
3 lines: “”These retreats from President Trump are not only disappointing but also heartbreaking, particularly for the families of the victims of gun violence,” Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.”
Assessment: Opinion.
1 line: “John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, which pushes for stiffer gun laws, said Trump should be more aggressive…”
Assessment: Opinion.
2 lines: “‘Voters across the political spectrum are demanding change _ and politicians who ignore them today will suffer the consequences in 2020,’ he said.”
Assessment: Opinion/Prediction.
LikeLike
Thanks for the line by line “analysis” of your objection to this piece and the reason that you would slap the piece as “fake news.” Most of your points are highly questionable. Too many examples to cite but, for example, using the word “horrors” does not turn a fact into an opinion. Nor does accurately quoting someone or reporting their opinion. In short, your point of view is skewed on almost every line. This is NOT “fake news” nor an opinion piece.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “slap the piece as ‘fake news.'”
Actually, I “slap” the piece for being analysis that is packaged as straight or factual reporting. This misrepresentation is the reason I call it “fake news.”
Your criticisms are not compelling. For example, I assess the use of the word “horrors” as “Unnecessary color/interpretation.” This in no way disputes the factual accuracy of the word, but makes an entirely different point. Indeed, the phrase, “As the horrors sunk in” could be deleted in it entirety without altering the factual reporting in the line in which it appears in any way. Or, it could have been rewritten less subjectively as “After the shootings.”
As for the quotations I assess, again I do not dispute that they presented accurately, only that they are quotations of opinion. There are enough of them that the entire article might be called an opinion piece, which is my substantive assertion.
LikeLike
You pick about a lot of unsourced, speculation and mind reading. And then you pick nits about people who are quoted in developing the story. I think you are the wrong Mr. Roberts to pick this story apart in the manner you did. As I do not believe you have a background in Journalism, as JIM does.
LikeLike
Several nits picked in your post, John.
You are entitled to your opinion concerning the piece. I refer back to mine where there was one OBVIOUS opinion. The things you point out are proven based on record of Mr. Trump, his many allies and supporters and even some of his detractors. They are not mind reading (as you have ALWAYS accused me of doing) but taken from the opinions of others as quoted in the article. Quotes of individuals spoken to in developing the article are part of the story. Just because YOU disagree, a la Trump, that does not make it “fake news”. It is called sourced reporting and there are numerous names attached to the majority of the quotes.
Sorry, John, but the nits you racked up are more annoying than factual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you know the difference between fact and opinion, Mr. Green?
I have given you two objective measurements, which you can validate on your own, plus 28 evidentiary assessments which substantiate my claim that The Pilot article is an opinion piece, not a factual one. Your response is to opine without evidence or example that my analysis is flawed.
Let us test your criticism. Show us how just one of my assessments is in error. This one will do:
“1 line: ‘Trump has been particularly wary of alienating his base.’
“Assessment: Speculation/mind reading.”
Show us how, in the context of the article, this statement is validated. You might tell us the source and explain, for example, how the source is reliable. Or, you might demonstrate how Trump’s state of mind is revealed or, specifically, how you know that his state of mind is one of wariness. Another possibility for you is to show, objectively, that there is some danger to Trump that his base will be alienated.
Can you accomplish any of these or similar things beyond claiming that the truth of the statement is obvious? I doubt you can.
LikeLike
It’s called LISTENING, Mr. Roberts. You hear it every day form Trump, his supporters, and his minions. He is not a PResident for ALL of the people of this country. COmmon sense shows that.
LikeLike
Common sense shows nothing of the kind. In fact, because common sense is the very issue under discussion, your comment begs the question.
You fail the test.
LikeLike
I would indicate that your comment is a veiled attack. Simply because we differ in opinions is no reason to claim I fail any test. You are free to disagree with my take on things. It is part of debate. Without disagreement, there would be no need for this site. But to state that I failed YOUR test is an unfair and ingracious attack on my opinion.
Let me put it this way. I think your overly long nit-picky post was a bogus piece of BS and had no real value to any discussion.
Again, the key is LISTENING and READING with an open mind. You appear to have a closed mind on all things progressive or liberal or any thing critical of Mr.Trump. You are entitled, but I believe you are wrong to call the piece from the LA Times fake news. It was well written, well sourced, and, IMO, extremely accurate. You can ignore what is obvious to many about our current President, but you do so at the peril of this country and what we should be getting back to.
LikeLike
Trump’s wariness of alienating his base is a historical fact that requires no mind reading nor speculation. It accurately describes his behavior which requires no special powers to see. For example, his extreme slowness in reacting to Charlottesville and his attempt to blame both sides for this outbreak of White Supremacist violence is an observable piece of evidence that he is wary of offending the sorts of people that cheer for such heinous behavior – his base.
LikeLiked by 1 person