Taking a ton of Vacations is only bad when its Obama?

justabubba said:

please quit exaggerating
tRump has only spent one minute out of every five at mar a lago since the inauguration
the guy is a workaholic. just ask him
i don't know how he manages to keep up this pace

Click to expand...

Never mind.

bubbabgone said:

Sears' stores failed too.

Click to expand...

Once Sears stopped publishing the catalog, nobody had anything to take to the outhouse, so their days were numbered. I thought Kmart might save 'em until I went into one. It looked like a grocery store in Kisumu, Kenya. Plenty of toothpaste and toilet paper with splinters in it. Gotta fill the shelves with something, I guess.

jimithyashford said:

So, by now even the most credulous of Trump supporters cannot possibly deny that the man takes a LOT of golfing breaks, especially compared to the last several presidents.

Now unless you have amnesia, you cannot possibly forget the Conservative media and many Conservative individuals, in fact many of you on this very forum, constantly raking Obama over the coals for taking, really, any vacation at all. In fact towards the end of his first term I seem to recall that being a favored whipping post of the Right, that literally every single time Obama was on vacation, they would publish some photo of him golfing along with a headline about him ignoring whatever was going on in the country at the time.

And yet I have heard not one single peep out of the conservative media about Trump's frequent vacations.


Now what I want is for some Trumper, who busted Obama's balls about taking breaks, to come on here and say that this also bother them about Trump, or to explain to be why it is ok for Trump but was a dereliction of duty under Obama.

I'm not going to hold my breath for a sane or coherent reply, but we will see.

Click to expand...

That's Trump's way of cutting down on federal expenses created by the White House, IMO. Having them in Florida instead. Letting Florida foot the bill. And Trump is doing work while he's in Florida. He doesn't proclaim he's going on vacation and no one hears from him until he's back from vacay.

Is Trump working at Camp David a vacation, too? Duh?

He never had to work for ***** according to him, he just grabbed it. Maybe that's how he things success in the worlds most important job is...he'll just grab it you know, people, they let him do anything.

By all means, when you finally land the most important job in the nation, take it easy! I mean, that's what the rest of us do when shouldered with enormous responsibility, we slack off. Right? He doesn't work much because he probably hasn't had to in, well, in his lifetime. Now that he's in the most important job in the [world?], with so much going against him, with so many scandals and so little experience.

Well I'll be, Vance Mack wouldn't blame him for taking as much time off, as far away, as humanly possible in his first 100 days. There you have it folks, common sense!

Trump doesn't actually live in a world where he feels good about a hard day's work. He can instead, occasionally shoot off his mouth at a rally, and thousands will preach their undying love for him. Why work and "do things", when you can just jabber a little and be loved?

The reality is that if you personally got a new very important very high profile job, amid insane contention, you would not in your right mind, do anything other than bust ass. You'd I hope *at least* do so for a year or two. But anyone who has been in charge of hiring/firing of any importance, would fire a slack ass like that after the first 4 weeks. Hey Trump, headed out to your vacation resort again? Don't bother coming back, we'll mail your final paycheck to you and box up your 24K gold toilet and ship it there.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

That's because your premise is deeply flawed. You are asking people to step forward to admit hypocrisy and, whodathunkit, people don't seem to be willing to step in your tiger trap.

Conversely, the trap has fully sprung on you and you either don't realize it or can't admit it. You complained about Bush's vacationing while excusing Obama's, and still act indignant that someone would dare to criticize Obama while forgiving Trump. "Oh, where did they go? Not a peep!" They're not coming here to volunteer their hypocrisy according to your rules. Apparently, the only one to have done so in this thread is you.

Click to expand...

1: It should not be a monumental lift to get a person to take a step back and go "I'll be damned, I had a prettly blatant double standard here" and to cop to to it. I've realized I was being a hypocrite before in my life, felt like a real arse once I realized it, and apologized/made amends. It's not that hard.

2: I was not saying that I give a crap about Bush's vacations or Obama's or Trump's, this thread is all about consistency and avoidance of hypocrisy. I was not, I repeat not, in case it was unclear I will say it again NOT criticizing Bush's amount of vacation, I was saying that it is consistent and non hypocritical to criticize one president for doing something too much, and then not criticize the next when he does that thing substantially less. The liberals who Criticized Bush's vacations (of which I was not one) and didn't criticize Obama, were not being hypocritical. Meanwhile those who defended Bush and them lambasted the guy who vacationed much less and not seem categorically incapable of criticizing the guy set to out pace them all, THOSE people are being hypocritical.

And if you think it is utterly absurd to expect people to have to come back and account for their words and deeds and for the consistency of their actions, well then fine, I don't think its absurd, I think it's quite reasonable, and something we could do with a lot more of. You are welcome to disagree.

VanceMack said:

va·ca·tion
vāˈkāSH(ə)n,vəˈkāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: vacation; plural noun: vacations

1.
North American
an extended period of recreation, especially one spent away from home or in traveling.
"he took a vacation in the south of France"

Dictionaries are your friend.

And yes...your argument is both ridiculous and dishonest.

Click to expand...

I already looked at the dictionary definition. Nothing about the definition contradicts what I said.

Geoist said:

I already looked at the dictionary definition. Nothing about the definition contradicts what I said.

Click to expand...

Except the entire definition and the common understanding of the word as known to mankind throughout history. Sure. :roll:

VanceMack said:

Except the entire definition and the common understanding of the word as known to mankind throughout history. Sure. :roll:

Click to expand...

What specifically about the definition contradicts what I've said?

Geoist said:

What specifically about the definition contradicts what I've said?

Click to expand...

Lets try "What is a 'vacation'?" for 300, Alex.

Come on man. This is an easy one to admit you are just ****ting yourself over nothing on and move on. There's like...9 other threads ongoing about Trump at any given time that you wont look silly commenting on. Just looking out for you.

VanceMack said:

Lets try "What is a 'vacation'?" for 300, Alex.

Come on man. This is an easy one to admit you are just ****ting yourself over nothing on and move on. There's like...9 other threads ongoing about Trump at any given time that you wont look silly commenting on. Just looking out for you.

Click to expand...

Still waiting on an answer...

jimithyashford said:

1: It should not be a monumental lift to get a person to take a step back and go "I'll be damned, I had a prettly blatant double standard here" and to cop to to it. I've realized I was being a hypocrite before in my life, felt like a real arse once I realized it, and apologized/made amends. It's not that hard.

2: I was not saying that I give a crap about Bush's vacations or Obama's or Trump's, this thread is all about consistency and avoidance of hypocrisy. I was not, I repeat not, in case it was unclear I will say it again NOT criticizing Bush's amount of vacation, I was saying that it is consistent and non hypocritical to criticize one president for doing something too much, and then not criticize the next when he does that thing substantially less. The liberals who Criticized Bush's vacations (of which I was not one) and didn't criticize Obama, were not being hypocritical. Meanwhile those who defended Bush and them lambasted the guy who vacationed much less and not seem categorically incapable of criticizing the guy set to out pace them all, THOSE people are being hypocritical.

And if you think it is utterly absurd to expect people to have to come back and account for their words and deeds and for the consistency of their actions, well then fine, I don't think its absurd, I think it's quite reasonable, and something we could do with a lot more of. You are welcome to disagree.

Click to expand...

What is the difference between doing an act and defending someone else doing that act, from a hypocrisy perspective?

It's almost as if you're saying that you'd never kill a dude, because killing is wrong, but boy are you sure glad someone else killed that dude because he sure needed killing!

If the nature of Bush's "vacationing" was significantly different from Obama's, there might be something to be said... but in that context, we can't accurately compare Trump yet because he hasn't been President all that long. We don't have enough data to qualify the type of "vacationing" he is guilty (or innocent) of yet.

It is also debatable how different Bush and Obama really were, considering how a President is never really on vacation. Further, in the context of this particular political hot button, Obama is as guilty as Trump of using the outgoing administration's "vacationing" as a campaign platform and then not living up to the promise. If you'll recall, nobody slammed Bush for playing golf, but they sure gave Obama hell over every round he played. "Golf" became the term du jour for wasting time during Obama's tenure... and now Trump dares to play golf? How dare he?

I agree, it's all pretty stupid and hypocritical. Again, I contend that a President is never really on vacation, and that his weekends are not really his own. But accusing one side of being hypocrites while not recognizing that the other side essentially did/does the same thing is, itself, hypocritical.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

What is the difference between doing an act and defending someone else doing that act, from a hypocrisy perspective?

It's almost as if you're saying that you'd never kill a dude, because killing is wrong, but boy are you sure glad someone else killed that dude because he sure needed killing!

If the nature of Bush's "vacationing" was significantly different from Obama's, there might be something to be said... but in that context, we can't accurately compare Trump yet because he hasn't been President all that long. We don't have enough data to qualify the type of "vacationing" he is guilty (or innocent) of yet.

It is also debatable how different Bush and Obama really were, considering how a President is never really on vacation. Further, in the context of this particular political hot button, Obama is as guilty as Trump of using the outgoing administration's "vacationing" as a campaign platform and then not living up to the promise. If you'll recall, nobody slammed Bush for playing golf, but they sure gave Obama hell over every round he played. "Golf" became the term du jour for wasting time during Obama's tenure... and now Trump dares to play golf? How dare he?

I agree, it's all pretty stupid and hypocritical. Again, I contend that a President is never really on vacation, and that his weekends are not really his own. But accusing one side of being hypocrites while not recognizing that the other side essentially did/does the same thing is, itself, hypocritical.

Click to expand...

I'm really quite bamboozled here as to why this is not clicking. Look, if you complain about person A playing music too loud, and then person B comes along and also plays music, but keeps the volume much lower, you are NOT being a hypocrite for not busting the chops of person B. BUT if you complain about person B's music, and then person C comes along playing music even louder and you don't complain about them, then it seems rather hypocritical and one might suspect it wasn't the music at all, you just wanted some pretense to b*tch at person B over and music volume was an easy one.

I mean, that is just so utterly intuitive and obvious and clear that I am really perplexed that I am having to defend this notion to a fellow educated adult. I really don't think it can be any more clear or obvious. So I'm not going to explain it further. You are either compelled by the notion or you are not, and I there is little more I can say to illustrate it.

jimithyashford said:

I'm really quite bamboozled here as to why this is not clicking. Look, if you complain about person A playing music too loud, and then person B comes along and also plays music, but keeps the volume much lower, you are NOT being a hypocrite for not busting the chops of person B. BUT if you complain about person B's music, and then person C comes along playing music even louder and you don't complain about them, then it seems rather hypocritical and one might suspect it wasn't the music at all, you just wanted some pretense to b*tch at person B over and music volume was an easy one.

I mean, that is just so utterly intuitive and obvious and clear that I am really perplexed that I am having to defend this notion to a fellow educated adult. I really don't think it can be any more clear or obvious. So I'm not going to explain it further. You are either compelled by the notion or you are not, and I there is little more I can say to illustrate it.

Click to expand...

To continue with your analogy:

Person B didn't just complain about Person A's music; person B talked trash about Person A's music and made the declaration that music is rude and contemptuous and a waste of everybody's time and resources... and then played his own music.

What you don't seem to see is that all of our presidents start off as Person B, and then become Person A.

To paraphrase Will Rogers, we all seem to be hypocritical, except on different presidents. Conservative friend of mine used to criticize Obama's vacations, executive orders, and use of a TelePrompTer. I used to point out that Obama's time off and executive orders were less/fewer than his predecessors. Didn't have the heart to needle him about the heaps of praise of Trump several weeks ago when he successfully used a TelePrompTer, a departure from his normal world-salad approach to public speaking.

No doubt there are inconsistencies in the way all of us view our favorite politicians.

Gonzo Rodeo said:

To continue with your analogy:

Person B didn't just complain about Person A's music; person B talked trash about Person A's music and made the declaration that music is rude and contemptuous and a waste of everybody's time and resources... and then played his own music.

What you don't seem to see is that all of our presidents start off as Person B, and then become Person A.

Click to expand...

Well, I mean anything can sound compelling if you are willing to make up history that didn't happen to support it.

As far as I know, and if you have a source to contrary I am more than willing to be proven wrong on this point, when Liberals criticized Bush they weren't bashing the very concept of taking a vacation, they weren't saying that a president should never take vacations, that taking any vacation at all was unseemly, or that the particular activity of golfing while on vacation was bad. I cannot recall that being the message in the slightest. Nobody ever suggested presidents should never take vacations and should not golf. Merely that Bush did an unseemly amount of it.

Now do I agree that the amount was unseemly, no, personally I do not. But some people did, and those people were perfectly consistent by not criticizing Obama when he did less vacationing. I really do not grasp why that isn't making sense to you. But you seem dead set on playing this "everyone is the same, everyone behaves equally badly, nobody is every the bad guy cause every does it anyway" game. Why you have such an, apparently, strong conviction to that idea I do not know. We have a rare instance in the political world where one side seems to be clearly guilty of a hypocrisy the other side is not, and you just categorically refuse to see it, you are starting the duck in the face and refusing to call it a duck, I can't imagine why, but there you are.