George W. Bush speaks out against Trump, warns power is addictive

Former President George W. Bush said that the power of the presidency can be addictive and that an independent media is necessary to keep things in check.

“I consider the media to be indispensable to democracy,” Bush said in a “Today” show interview Monday morning. “We need an independent media to hold people like me to account. Power can be very addictive and it can be corrosive, and it’s important for the media to call to account people who abuse their power, whether it be here or elsewhere.”

Bush’s comments contrast sharply with those of President Trump, who has declared war on the mainstream media, which he has branded “the enemy of the American people.” On Thursday, Trump used a speech at a conservative conference to go on a lengthy diatribe against the media. On Friday, the BBC, CNN, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Politico were all abruptly barred from an off-camera briefing with press secretary Sean Spicer.

During his “Today” show interview, Bush said it was important for America to have an independent media landscape in order to pressure other countries into embracing the same.

“One of the things I spent a lot of time doing was trying to convince a person — like Vladimir Putin, for example — to accept the notion of an independent press. It’s kind of hard to tell others to have an independent free press when we’re not willing to have one ourselves,” he said.

“It’s hard to unify the country when the president is so split up. When I was president, you mattered a lot more because there was, like, three of you,” Bush told interviewer Matt Lauer. “Now there’s all kinds of information being bombarded out, and people can say things anonymously. It’s just a different world.”

Bush also said he wanted answers regarding Russia’s connection to the White House but wasn’t sure a special prosecutor was the correct tactic. He said he would defer to the judgment of Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on how to investigate the matter.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well it turns out he didn't say that anyway....so he wasn't.
HAD he said it....he would have been.

So in your opinion then it was spot on?

Even though I have already reasoned why to me its not spot on?

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


So in your opinion then it was spot on?

Even though I have already reasoned why to me its not spot on?

Well that's your opinion Thor, mine is obviously different to yours.

Syl wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

I think you will find that Corbyn's "popularity" was not entirely unrelated to the fact that he had been "elected" for the first time largely by a huge number of, shall we say, assorted Trots, Marxists, Socialist Worker sellers, malcontents, etc.,etc. who were given the right to vote provided they paid three quid into the Labour Party's coffers,  and for the second time by the same bunch who had to cough up 25 quid (inflation, you know!) - though refundable by the trade unions who were supporting the Corbyn candidature.

OK, a crude and over simplified analysis I will admit...but I think that Corbyn, a decent and sincere bloke perhaps, would last six months at the most as Prime Minister, in the unlikely event of a Labour win, before being forcibly replaced by the infinitely more dangerous Macdonnell.

The present state of the Labour Party worries me sick. What this country needs is a strong and united Opposition  - in the interests of democracy. What we have is the most dysfunctional  and ineffectual Opposition I have ever seen in a long, long lifetime.

I am not really into the ins and out of politics, personally I had never heard of Corbyn till he made that speech.  I don't like him, I think he has put the last nail in a labour party that had been run into the ground over the last few years.
I have no idea what the choice will be when the next election comes round....I will never vote cons, which leaves......nothing.

Thorin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Well that's your opinion Thor, mine is obviously different to yours.

Ahhh, but as seen I reason my views, which kind of conflicts with your early point on this, that I originally replied to Syl.

Syl wrote:

Thorin wrote:


Ahhh, but as seen I reason my views, which kind of conflicts with your early point on this, that I originally replied to Syl.

Well it's a mute point really because Trump didn't say it.

My origional point in this thread though was agreeing with Ben, when he said that people on this site get so fixated with the person they don't agree with the point....whatever the point they are making is.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Syl wrote:
I am not really into the ins and out of politics, personally I had never heard of Corbyn till he made that speech.  I don't like him, I think he has put the last nail in a labour party that had been run into the ground over the last few years.
I have no idea what the choice will be when the next election comes round....I will never vote cons, which leaves......nothing.

I'm old fashioned and vote for my local candidate, first and foremost. I've voted Labour, Tory and Lib Dem in the past...and on one occasion was so disillusioned by the list of candidates that I threw away my vote and opted for the Monster Raving Loony Party!

When the result was announced I was one of 18....

Corbyn, incidentally, is demanding that his MPs obey three-line whips on pain of disciplinary action...though as a back bencher he defied the party whip on no fewer than 428 occasions!

And his former mistress and now Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott campaigned against the right of parents to remove their children from the state education system and pay to send them to independent schools...until she was caught out having, er, withdrawn her son from a state school and was paying for him to go to a private school.

Bloody politicians, eh? Can't trust any of 'em.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

So why is it so bad for Trump to be saying similar and trying to do what Obama said he would do back then...?

You're still not getting it, Tommy. TRUMP NEVER SAID THAT. The DYK put words into Trump's mouth. He wanted the lefties here to jump over themselves bashing a fake Trump quote, only to then reveal it was the Democrats' language.

I'm not so much bothered by that, but he (or someone else) selectively edited that language to remove some of the compassionate and more reasonable notes that it sounded.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

So why is it so bad for Trump to be saying similar and trying to do what Obama said he would do back then...?

You're still not getting it, Tommy. TRUMP NEVER SAID THAT. The DYK put words into Trump's mouth. He wanted the lefties here to jump over themselves bashing a fake Trump quote, only to then reveal it was the Democrats' language.

I'm not so much bothered by that, but he (or someone else) selectively edited that language to remove some of the compassionate and more reasonable notes that it sounded.

I get it just fine... I never said i thought trump said that exact quote, I said trump has said stuff largely similar to that...


Then questioned why it's only bad when trump says such things...?