I'm sorry, but I cannot abide this man as president. He sounds like a demented 10-year-old. How anyone can believe he is fit is beyond my comprehension. He speaks less eloquently than my elderly mother who has Alzheimer's.
I've truly tried to understand the Trump supporter who continues to defend him. Spent an hour speaking with one yesterday. What I got was: I don't care if he grabs pussies, is a serial liar, bullies people, or kisses Putin's @ss. I don't care if he has already golfed more in one year than Obama did his entire presidency (I'm not sure he has, but this Trump supporter seems to think so and doesn't care). I don't care if he slurs his words during speeches. Everybody does that (really? everybody?) For him, as long as Trump seals the borders and flips the bird to the world, hey, America is "tough" again.
Seriously, Trump people, I will never forgive you for putting this cretin in the Oval Office. Most of you also thought the invasion of Iraq was just peachy keen, too, because America has to be "tough" by invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. I'd say your judgment has been proven to be pretty bad. When will you realize it? When the economy tanks from the massive tax cuts to the wealthy? When Don Jr. is indicted? When we're so isolated from the world community that we have very little influence?
When will enough be enough?
Our glorious leader, in his own words, on tape:
"I was a great student and all this stuff."
"I know the details of taxes better than anybody. Better than the greatest CPA."
"I know more about the big bills ... [Inaudible] ... than any president that's ever been in office."
"He treated me better than anybody's ever been treated in the history of China."
"It's too bad Jeff recused himself. I like Jeff, but it's too bad he recused himself."
"I don't want to get into loyalty, but I will tell you that, I will say this: Holder protected President Obama. Totally protected him."
"I'm the one that saved coal."
"One of the great two days of anybody's life and memory having to do with China."
"Another reason that I'm going to win another four years is because newspapers, television, all forms of media will tank if I'm not there because without me, their ratings are going down the tubes."
"So they basically have to let me win."
Be careful, Panther, you may have contracted a virulent case of TDS!!
He reminds of the Mr. Bean comic character, who everyone had to be more than what he appeared to be on the surface, but the reality is 'what you see is what you get'. This is Jed Clampett in Beverly Hills
Conservatives say that Trump and the GOP tax plan will be a boon for the economy and the citizens, but if they are so comfortable, I have to be nervous.
But, I am being honest, I never liked the guy. I didn't like his "Mr Trump" role in the "Celebrity Apprentice", where he was free to make fools of washed up actors and entertainers. My wife thought the program was an interesting interaction between people, I thought that it was just bull**** at the outset.
His involvement in the "Birther" controversy regarding President Obama's origins was unforgiveable from my standpoint.
His 'tweeting' and interacting to the "Britain First" nativist extremist group defying the Prime Minister and the British Government in the process, did not endear him to many.
The Boy Scout troop debacle, that revealed that the man operates completely unhinged.
His use of "big stick" bullying diplomacy at the UN. Threating sovereign nations is not the way we should be applying leadership.
He backed Roy Moore, accused of inappropriate relationships with minor girls while an adult. The fact that Trump could support this man, no matter what tells a bit more about his character.
Conservative attacks on Obama were never about principle but were completely partisan in nature. So of course, they will say that Trump, virtually living on the golf course compared with Obama, is "different"?
Your input is appreciated and I look forward to your commentary during the upcoming year,
Have a happy 2018
His arrogance is a turn off for many of us. I think in the conservative mind, they themselves would prefer to be the bully and admire Trump for trampling over the fine points of American foreign policy.
I too am extremely embarrassed, to have this buffoon representing our country. I have no hesitation in avowing he's the most dishonest POTUS in the history of the US. Even if he hasn't been involved in colluding with the Russians he's still an arrogant boastful liar, something his followers don't seem to mind at all. I've asked many of his fans why he lies so much and how do you tell when he's telling the truth. So far, none have endeavored to answer. This is telling in itself.
His adoring fans may sense there's more to Trump's involvement with the Russians and they simply cannot imagine they may have voted for a traitor. I suppose I don't blame them....
I thought Dubya was embarrassing. Trump makes Dubya look like a genius.
My sentiments exactly, PP! We're lucky the fools didn't put Palin in the VP's spot as they wanted.
I volunteer with someone whose daughter worked directly with Dubya. He apparently was a good person and dedicated to the job. But he wasn't very good at it.
Obama's economics were crap compared to Trump. Hard to believe that such an ineloquent, dirty, capitalist can turn over the economy in such a short time, while a brilliant Harvard educated, socialist, Obama attains the title of food stamp president.
Illegal immigration is down, Tax cuts are stimulating job growth, we're out of that crappy, job killing, Paris deal, ISIS is on the run, Obamacare's individual mandate is repealed, and Jerusalem is the capitol of Israel. And the most important thing is Hillary lost, twice!
But hey, at least Obama was a good public speaker.
Are you serious, oo? Do you actually know what a mess Obama inherited from the last conservative President? Obama took a recession and turned it into a growing economy which your idol--Comrade Trump--is now taking credit for. Fox talking points don't work in the real world, dude!
Well, I see your point, but I don't regard Bushy Boy as a conservative. Obama DID inherit a mess, but he made it a point to purposely step on alot of economic toes while trying to turn things around. Even so, there's no doubt that Obama can take some credit for this year's turnaround, though only some. Honestly though, the US economy has been headed for the crapper for a long time, and no one's going to truly turn this around.
Right. According to your dear leader, the economy was crap right up until he took office, then miraculouy, barely a month later, that same economy is booming and all because of Trump. I remember conservatives right here on these forums repeatedly saying the lower unemployment numbers, for example, were not real. Once Trump took office, those same numbers, as well as a myriad number of other economic indicators that were dismissed under Obama are suddenly gleefully cited as evidence of Trump's booming economy.
So transparent. Of course, it is clear you all don't care about the lies.
"Tax cuts are stimulating job growth,...."
LOL, the tax cuts haven't yet taken effect, so they can't possibly be stimulating job growth. But, hey, what's one more lie?
They never address the lies, PP. It's as if they don't see them, especially those with a religious bent. I suppose that's why. They're accustomed to believing the unbelievable.
Just goes to show you don't know a thing about how the economy works. Liberals live in an economic fantasy land where Nancy Pelosi can spin recycled trash into insulin shots and eppi pens, and Barack Obama can summon green energy from out his bung hole.
The reality however is much different. Socialism is a slow process that regulates the economy, and brings production to a crawl, while capitalism is a quick and lasting cure to poverty.
Right. A guy who says tax cuts that haven't yet happened are stimulating the economy lectures others about their knowledge of the economy. Or, are you referring to the middle class tax cuts that happened under Obama?
No, I'm talking about a bill that calls for the most deregulation of industry this nation has seen since Obama sat his skinny socialist backside in the chair.
Obama's tax cuts were based on class warfare or income inequality, or whatever PC term they're using today, which did nothing but stir up hatred and violence from the left.
Face it economic planning doesn't work, capitalism crushes it in seconds.
So Obama's success with the economy was because of Socialism? So what has DT changed to make the economy what it is now? The new tax bill is not in effect, so enlightening us with your great economic genius, Oo.
What success? You mean the most food stamps the US has ever dolled out in a single presidential cycle? Or was it the deficit that he doubled down on? Or perhaps it was all those government shut downs. Maybe it was that disastrous healthcare bill that kicked millions of people off their insurance programs and penalized people for not participating. Or perhaps it was the failure with green energy, and those millions of dollars wasted in the failure of Solyndra.
But I'm thinking it was the 5% drop in labor force participation, in fact Obama's GDP growth never got higher than 1.5%, which hasn't happened since 1929, but I'm sure there's a Nobel prize in there somewhere.
Why are you asking me questions, oo? You don't seem to be willing to answer my queries. It doesn't work that way, Dude. Did you vote for Dubya as well? Check what a mess he left Obama to clean up and what a good economy Donnie inherited. Ask Hannity how you should respond to hard questions about Trump if don't know the facts.
What he said is very telling.
"It's too bad Jeff recused himself. I like Jeff, but it's too bad he recused himself."
“I don’t want to get into loyalty, but I will tell you that, I will say this: Holder protected President Obama. Totally protected him,” Mr. Trump said. He added: “When you look at the things that they did, and Holder protected the president. And I have great respect for that, I’ll be honest.”
Some people would rather be wrong than admit they are wrong.
They rationalize for the sake of defending their choices, even to the point of supporting somone who is dangerous to the entire country. German support of Hitler is a great example of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political … nalization
Uh oh, the Hitler comparison. Expect to be chastised any time now.
GA, you out there....?
No! No! I meant to write Gitler! Or Zitler! I can't remember. It's the guy who was dictator of Modavia.
I'm not comparing Trump to Hitler. I'm simply using Hitler as an obvious example of how people rationalize their political choices.
That's exactly what I did. The behavior of a certain segment of the U.S. population is behaving remarkably similar to the Germans during the rise of Hitler.
Now that was well done PrettyPanther. A Hitler comparison that wasn't. And a point well made too.
Promisem, are you out there... see how it's done?
ps. just a slight change would have made it even sneakier;
"...remarkably similar to the Germans during the late 1930s and early 1940s."
It keeps your hands clean by letting the reader draw the obvious inference.
I have no desire to be "sneakier". I would rather be honest and open about my beliefs.
aww geez promisem. do you bleed when you scratch an itch?
I call it like I see it, especially when the observation is obvious. But there you go again, focusing on the messenger ...
The message was about the messenger this time promisem. I think my focus was correctly directed.
My recollection of your past postings gives the perception that your complaints of responses "not staying on topic" and, "attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message," only arise when the responses don't agree with your determination of the message.
That was the "message" my response carried.
Hello GA, I am not worried about keeping my hands clean. I just state what I mean, sometimes imperfectly, but I do my best to be forthright.
I really did mean it as an obvious example of the problem. We can easily say the same thing about Putin, Stalin and certain other political leaders.
They convinced millions of people to support and defend them even when it became obvious their behavior was a threat to democracy.
GA, am I allowed to mention Putin in a thread about Trump?
I think we're all adults and we ought to be able to discuss Hitler comparisons just like any other comparison.
Hell yeah! Putting Putin's past provocations, prevarications and plodding putterings in the pot provides plenty of potential presidential pairings to ponder. ;-)
The truth shall set you free.
It is true that Trump had been right about most things he commented on.
He said the Obama administration spied on him... now we find out yes, they did using the FBI and FISA courts...
He said climate change and the Paris Accord was a joke and now we see scientists afdmitting we are entering a mini ice age next few decades.
He said our infrastructure is like third world countries and our airports are outdated...and we just had a blackout in Atlanta airports that cancelled thousands of flights...
You can continue with all your TDS rants but the truth is, we finally have a person in the White House that knows how to govern. The next few years will just validate this fact mote and more.
Hang on a minute promisem. I have a longer handled shovel you can borrow. I'll go get it.
Then you can finish telling me how your comparison wasn't really a comparison.
... and this isn't an apple either.
Are you saying that German support of Hitler isn't a famous example of political rationalization?
Or that I can't use certain references in any posts about Trump even when they are relevant to the discussion?
I'm curious if you have an opinion about the issue and not the use of a specific name in my post.
Now I am curious promisem. Are you saying that your comparison wasn't also an indirect comparison? (looks like that longer shovel handle was needed)
Of course I am not saying what references or names you can use promisem. I have no standing there. I only offer what I perceive to be the resulting perceptions imparted by the words or names you use.
As for my opinion on the issue... .I think my response to PrettyPanther should offer an answer.
My original comment was clear: "German support of Hitler is a great example of (political rationalization)." Nowhere in my post did I mention Trump.
I maintain that it's probably the most famous example in history of the point I was making.
You seem intent on claiming a direct or indirect comparison where none existed at all.
Yes, I saw it PrettyPanther. But my time is limited today and I have just been popping in and out. promisem's comparison was a bit of bait I have to pass on. Especially since this thread seems such a dangerous neighborhood - even for us Purples.
Plus, I wouldn't want to be accused of addressing the messenger instead of the message.... again. ;-)
Yes, GA, its rough territory for reds and purples, so proceed with caution...
Well, yes, it's again based on the words "you" and "your" and what you want me to do with your shovel handle.
I'm astonished you refer to yourself as Purple in light of your vigorous defense of guns, Trump, conservatives, etc.
Maybe we should start a separate thread to pin down our specific positions and get away from the word dancing.
Got a topic? How can we set and enforce guidelines to keep posts focused on the issue rather than the person?
I was thinking multiple topics. Like one of those “political compass” quizzes. Maybe that’s too complicated.
I don’t think there’s any way to keep people from making it personal. Some really can’t help themselves. Just hope that the majority keep it on track I guess?
Word dancing. GA is good at that. See, I'm getting personal again but for me, when I hang out with my forum buddies for a few years, I can't help but notice their interesting patterns of behavior.
Nothing wrong with being a word dancer; we need them to relieve us from the blunt talkers like me.
GA is staying firmly on the fence as I told him the other day. He does have his legs hanging on the Trump side it seems from his comments.
There you go again... You almost had me nailed promisem, but then you slipped up and left the door open.
I am doubtful you can find an instance of me defending Pres. Trump. If you had just left that part out, you would have me dead-to-rights.
I usually don't consider my responses "word dancing," sometimes maybe, but more often I think of them as polite efforts to avoid saying mean things about someone's contributions. Nobody likes to be shown they are wrong, or in worst cases - called an idiot.
I'm feeling pretty confident Randy. But after this string of responses, (I was warned about the neighborhood), I'm also feeling a bit challenged. Maybe you can team up with promisem and find an instance of me defending Pres. Trump? PrettyPanther will probably help too - if you ask.
But wait... let's define this bar bet.
Me refusing to criticize Trump doesn't count.
Me validly, (by non-partisan standards), countering a partisan criticism doesn't count
and finally, me agreeing with a Trump policy doesn't count.
Are you up to it? I'll mix up some martinis while you look.
ps. I'll even take a box of crow out of the freezer - just in case. I was wrong once before, it was back in '78, when I thought I was mistaken - but I was wrong. So I guess it could happen again
LOL I would say you never, ever criticize Trump. Technically, that does not make you a Trump supporter, but one could argue that silence about Trump's egregious behavior is enabling him and his defenders to "normalize" behavior that never would have been tolerated in POTUS before.
Sort of like when a significant segment of German citizens actively supported Hitler while another significant segment remained silent.
Sort of like that.
Wow, this really is a dangerous neighborhood... for me. Your last point is one to consider PrettyPanther.
I don't feel like I have shied away from discussing, either for or against, candidate or President Trump's policies or personnel moves. I think my recent agreement with Randy over his UN statements could be seen as criticism - concerning a policy. I also think I recall some discussion about Session's decision to recuse himself from the Russian thing that could also be seen as criticism of Pres. Trump's words.
But, I have steadfastly avoided criticizing the man. And that is probably why my responses are seen as defending him.
It would be much easier for me to just agree that my opinion of the man, and his personal traits, is probably similar to what most of you liberal Leftists, (a joke! it was a joke!), post everyday. But I am sure you have enough life experience to know how often the easy road is the wrong road.
Rather than lending support to a discussion point, (like high-fives from fellow choir members), I think personal attacks diminish the credibility of the opinion being offered.
Now, your closing point forces me to consider the comparison. I will ponder it for a while and get back to you, but my first thought is that your point is relative to moral judgement. And here again, you would probably find me in agreement with your thoughts more often than you think - I just don't publish those judgments. Morals change. Moral perspectives are cultural. And I am sure as hell not qualified to say my moral judgments are right and yours, (generic "yours"), are wrong.
I will have to think on whether or not that makes me an enabler.
Geesh, I broke a sweat on that one. But I can't stop this one little escapee from slipping out; "Of course I agree with you that a pussy-grabbing braggart is not the image I expect of a president..
So, let's have some policy discussions. I don't have to do any word dancing in expressing my opinions in those. You do have some thoughts about policy decisions don't you?
Well, there is much I could say in response to this post. Even as I start typing, I am not sure how much I will say. Believe it or not, I do restrain myself quite often.
Let me start with the part of your post that popped out at me the most.
"It would be much easier for me to just agree that my opinion of the man, and his personal traits, is probably similar to what most of you liberal Leftists, (a joke! it was a joke!), post everyday. But I am sure you have enough life experience to know how often the easy road is the wrong road."
I do not believe that holding Trump supporters to the fire for their support of such a despicable man is the "easy road." On the contrary, it takes a remarkable amount of persistence, and optimism, to think that one could possibly, maybe, get someone to examine their moral underpinnings enough to see how their support of a low-life for the highest office in the land might be, not just "misplaced," but also despicable and dangerous. Do you think those citizens who enabled the rise of Hitler, either through active support or silence, should bear some responsibility for allowing such a man to rise? I do. I don't blame them for his atrocities, but I do believe those who remained silent, as well as those who actively supported him, bear responsibility for his ascension to power.
Now, the reason I keep bringing that up and making the comparison is because we ought to be able to learn from that. At what point does it become "okay" to make the comparison? When we have Nazi sympathizers stating they feel emboldened by our president, and our president not fully denouncing them? Surely, that should be enough for us to legitimately make that comparison.
Sure, morality changes, but that does not mean we should not make moral judgments about our leaders. I submit that every policy perpetrated by our elected officials arises from, or is guided by, moral judgement.
Should we spend our money on health care for all, or on a massive defense budget? Moral judgment. Should we invade Iraq because their leader is a despot? What about because,we want access to their oil? Moral judgment.
Should we support a man, for the highest office in the land, who brags about grabbing pussies, is a serial liar, mocks the disabled, bullies women, implies a female senator is a whore? Moral judgment.
If we remain silent while this man is in office, then we can kiss goodbye any claim of being a great nation. If we allow this presidency to "stand," we can no longer claim leadership in the world.
I truly believe that if we normalize this man as president, we might not ever get back our self-respect as a nation. I am embarrassed and ashamed that we inflicted this horrible person on the world and I will not let Trump voters off the hook for it. The "easy road" would be to just write them off as hopeless idiots. Instead, I will not give up trying to convince them they made a terrible mistake that could bring down this country if we don't correct it.
Surely, we are better than that.
Edited to add:
We can have policy discussions on other threads. This is my righteous rant about the man who is unfit to take care of my dog, much less my country.
"We can have policy discussions on other threads. This is my righteous rant about the man who is unfit to take care of my dog, much less my country"
Let me ask you. Would you welcome a man who says and does the things that Donald Trump has said and done into your home? Would you welcome him as a friend? Would you want your son or daughter to spend time alone with this guy? I wouldn't. He does not meet the minimum standards of character required for me to trust him in my home or with my family. Why on earth would I want him to be my president?
Panther, don't get me started on this guy. I like to think that if I am not at a raucous tavern or bar, I would find his vulgar style and reputation unwelcome, and certainly not fit for mixed company in my home. After all, he was challenged in keeping his address to the Boy Scout Troop earlier this year age appropriate. Vulgarity just seems to be the foundation of his existence as he seems to be unable to control it. Conservatives say that none of the stuff about his phony university has yet to be proved, but I would like to think that my President would be beyond the bunko stuff sort of prank. Trump's style for association is based on expediency, such men do not have friends. At his position, his behavior should be exemplary as kids look up to the office and the man there but too often, the decency found in the common man in the street cannot be found here.
I don't trust him nor the party he represents to really have the needs of the masses of the middle and working classes as its central interest. Since, Eisenhower, my first President, never have I met a man so coarse in style and manner representing us all. LBJ, might have been a close second, however.
I neither like him as a man nor as a leader, and I never really could say that about even the worse of the GOP chief executives in the recent past.
So, to answer your question, yes, he is outside his element.
Hope you have a very happy 2018, credence. You, too, GA, Randy, wilderness, and everyone else. I have a new delight: pomegranate martinis. Tonight is a perfect excuse to indulge.
Happy New Year!
Look forward to seeing those sharp talons of yours put to good use in the coming year!!
Typical female. Ruin a perfectly good martini with fruit. You probably like Appletinis too.
Happy New years to you and your husband too.
PrettyPanther, I can see how strongly you feel about your perspective of Pres. Trump's character, and its impact on our nation.
Your question about silence equating to enabling was worth considering, but I hope you didn't misunderstand my response to be agreement with your comparisons.
I did think about your question. I think there are important differences that invalidate your comparison. I think Pres. Trump's election, and actions, represent a paradigm change in our nation's political direction. I think we need a major change. Whether Pres. Trump is the correct change remains to be seen.
And until that change can be judged, I will continue to leave the "morally acceptable" character discussions to others.
"I did think about your question. I think there are important differences that invalidate your comparison."
Would you mind elaborating?
I thought this was just a "rant" thread. ;-) Now you want to make me work to disprove a point of a rant.
My first thought is to politely refuse to elaborate. One, because it would turn your "rant" thread into a Hitler thread, and two, because it would force the discussion of many different policy and action aspects into a singular discussion of the validity of your comparison.
For this thread I am going to stick with my first thought.
Aw, come on. I value your judgment and I really want to know why you think the comparison is invalid or inappropriate. If it helps, I promise not to argue against your point although I might want to ask for clarification if I don't fully understand.
And, appletinis are gross. :-)
Damn, now you are challenging me to live-up to my archaic thought that a gentleman never refuses a lady's request, (within reason of course).
Shooting from the hip, and without going into specific instances, I will offer this reason:
Hitler's efforts were to gain complete control of all government - including the military. His methods were brutal , and often deadly, and mostly hidden from public view - until the deed was done. He did not work within the mechanisms of the German government - he seized and demolished those mechanisms. Those that remained silent, (and thus became enablers), were mostly an inner circle, not the general public. Up to a point. Of course his "Jewish" action doesn't fit that description, we have all heard the "When they came for..." adage, but when his actions became obvious to the general public, silence meant living and vocal opposition meant death.
I see Pres. Trump's efforts as directed at policy changes, not personal power acquisition, ( I do understand that perspective can be challenged). And his efforts are very public. His supporters are not a small minority, and his detractors are not silenced. My perspective is that Pres. Trump is very much working within the mechanisms of our government.
My, (and others), silence concerning personal attacks is not enabling Pres.Trump, it is just not joining a majority opposition.
Your perspective, (as it appears to me), and comparison, is that if I, (we), don't vocally agree with your perspective, then we supporting those things you find so wrong - we are "enabling" Pres. Trump.
The similarities you see in your comparison are only in appearances, and that is my disagreement, and why I think your comparison is not a valid one.
Okay, I can see your perspective even though I could disagree on quite a few of your points, but I promised I wouldn't argue against them. :-)
I will correct something you stated about my own position.
"Your perspective, (as it appears to me), and comparison, is that if I, (we), don't vocally agree with your perspective, then we supporting those things you find so wrong - we are "enabling" Pres. Trump."
The way I see it, if you remain silent about his unprecedented level of lying, for example, then you are implicitly accepting it as normal and acceptable behavior for a president of the United States, thereby forever altering the minimum standards for an acceptable level of character and behavior for a person to occupy that office. To me, that's a very big deal. You are not enabling Trump, per se, but continued silence, and the acceptance it implies, enabled the ascension of him to the presidency, and could possibly enable his continuance in office.
Of course, that might be exactly what you want, in which case you could just say so. :-)
I'm not surprised you could find points of contention PrettyPanther. I did mention I was just "shooting from the hip," and I am sure my off-the-cuff answer left plenty of opportunities for dissent.
Still, I don't see my refusal to participate in personal attacks - whether I see them as justified or not, as acceptance. And I don't see my "silence" as "... altering the minimum standards for an acceptable level of character and behavior ..."
I always try to follow a piece of advice I heard from my grandfather; "If you can't say something good about someone - don't say anything at all." It's hard sometimes, but I always try.
I felt a little validation for my efforts when in a recent read, a description of Thomas Jefferson's style of both debate, and normal discussion, noted that when confronted with an obviously erroneous or contentious statement or opinion, rather than tell the person they were wrong, or argue with them, he would change the direction of the conversation to enable him to present his perspective - without having to correct or denigrate the other person. I frequently fail in the part about offering correction, but I try to be consistent about the "not denigrating" part.
Hmm, I guess I don't see stating a fact about Trump's behavior as denigrating him, and I certainly don't see them as "personal attacks.". He lies. He lies at an unprecedented level, about both important and minor matters. Stating that fact about his behavior is not denigrating him, in my opinion.
I have an autistic son. Throughout his life, I have let him know when his behavior is so outside the social norm that it could cause him serious problems. His teachers have done the same so he can understand and work to change them to a more acceptable level. Am I denigrating him? I don't think so.
That said, I freely admit I have denigrated him by referring to him as the orange clown or Little Donnie and more. As I have explained, I intentionally do it to make a point. Trump supporters elected a man who mocked a disabled reporter and routinely calls his " enemies" (his word) names. By voting for a man who does that, they have explicitly accepted that behavior as okay for their president. Many of them would like to hold me to a higher standard than their president. I do it to make them consider what they have chosen to be acceptable in a president. They think it's okay for their president to brag about grabbing pussies, but chastise me for calling Little Donnie a name. Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
I think we'll just have to disagree on what constitutes a personal attack. I will continue to point out when our president behaves like a demented 10-year-old [ personal attack]. I'll continue to call him a serial liar [fact] and a bully [fact].
"I know more about taxes than the greatest CPA." LOL
GA, I have watched and you have carefully avoided evaluation of Trump and spoke about his policy solely. Well, since we have been communicating, I never really seen you come after Obama, tooth and nail, with personal biting comments, at least as far as I remember. So, it makes your position here a bit more credible.
The difference between blue and purple comes out. As a blue, I neither like the medicine nor the means of delivery. As a purple, I think that because you basically approve of the medicine, you are less apt to complain about the method of delivery. But, I confess that It is hard to approve of the delivery method if you do not like the medicine. But, the Trump style uses a mallet, rather then Novocain.
His methods and manner cannot be really separated from his policy. Perhaps if he were less abrasive about everything, all that right wing dogma may have passed through with less indigestion.
Thanks again for sharing with me a bit of history last summer, and may you have a prosperous 2018. You can bet there will plenty of contentious issues for debate in the succeeding year. This may well be the time when I can get one of the chambers of Congress to "flip".
Hi Cred, you nailed it!
"The difference between blue and purple comes out. As a blue, I neither like the medicine nor the means of delivery. As a purple, I think that because you basically approve of the medicine, you are less apt to complain about the method of delivery. But, I confess that It is hard to approve of the delivery method if you do not like the medicine. But, the Trump style uses a mallet, rather then Novocain. "
Now we just need to find out if Pres. Trump is the right "medicine." I think a good medicinal comparison would be to cancer treatment. Are you familiar with how debilitating and rough chemo and radiation cancer treatments can be?
However, within limits, I do think his manner and method can be separated from his policies. I couldn't hold the position I do if I didn't.
Happy New Year to you and yours too. And I think that Congressional "flip" you want is a strong possibility. Or at least a reduction in the majority cushion that will require more bipartisan cooperation.
Any hope for bipartisan solutions are gone after the last vote on the tax reform bill. It is funny how democrats hope for bipartisanship when they are in the minority party but then governs with partisanship when in power. Some republicans seems to fall into this trap every time. It is time the people get what they want and voted for and the Washington elites and their cronies be damned.
It is never wrong in my opinion to do the right thing. Party loyalty should be the last an elected official think of.
Standing up to North korean and Iran and backing Israel is the right thing.
Pulling funds away from the UN is the right thing.
Cutting taxes on the American middle class is the right thing.
Building the wall is the right thing.
Pro-Trump posters on HP don't have to say "I support Trump" directly. They can criticize (constructively or destructively) the posts of people who oppose Trump.
I believe you support Trump and his followers by criticizing posts (usually in a subtle and somewhat constructive way) of the opposition.
I'm not criticizing you for having a conservative bias that spills over into Trump discussions. It's no different than liberals with a bias that also spill over when debating Trump. I'm just saying it's there.
And I believe you are wrong. Ain't choice great!
If an "opposition" post legitimately deserved criticism - I don't think supporting that criticism equates to supporting Trump. What if an anti-Trump poster took issue with a blatantly wrong anti-Trump post, (I know - not likely), would that mean the criticizing poster is a Trump supporter?
"...somewhat constructive..." That sort of sounds like the point addressed might benefit from a little criticism - yet you deem that to be a pro-Trump motive?
Happy holidays, Promisem.
Instead of Hitler, how about Adenoid Hynkel?
You just don’t understand him because he’s so much smarter than you. He got a bigly degree from the best school in the universe and majored in everything. Got the highest test scores anyone has ever seen. Albert Einstein actually came back from the dead to ask him some questions about stuff but Einstein wanted to do a photo shoot so Trump turned him down. Before he crawled back into the ground though Einstein reportedly told Trump he had the biggest hands he’s ever seen and that staring directly into a solar eclipse is actually a sign of very high intelligence. It’s true, this actually happened, Alex Jones will tell you so.
And why is it that liberals focus so much on race baiting and social justice, and choose to be blind to the newly restored confidence in the stock market and economic turnaround that we have experienced over the last few months?
Look no further than the history of Marxism. It was Marxist scientists that knew the world would fall to communism at the outbreak of the first world war, it was guaranteed science. But it didn't happen. They were wrong. But scientists can't be wrong, so they turned their theory from economic Marxism to focus on cultural Marxism. They even set up a school in Germany. The Germans however didn't like Marxist Jews hanging around so they moved their school to Columbia University where they developed critical theory. The same place where Obama studied economics.
And the goal of these Marxists was to undermine the affluence of American life by attributing it's success to every negative practice that has been applied globally throughout the history of the world. Oppression of homosexuals, minorities, women, and any other special interest group they could think of. Nevermind the fact that we fought a war to be one of the first countries to end slavery, or the first to enact women's suffrage laws, of that we guarantee in our constitution the right to worship how they choose.
It's impossible for the liberal mind to fathom that 100 million Americans know how to plan their own lives better than a few liberal elites in Washington.
Onusonus, Excellent! I find that liberals try to play on emotion because they can't convince people of their views with an intellectual approach. On pure facts of history, liberals are always defeated. The good thing is they think with their emotions so much, they have no idea why Donald Trump won the election. This would require them to look at themselves and be honest. Since they like to play with emotions it's easier to create a hoax like collusion or the election was rigged and more than to admit they are wrong and figure out why. I enjoy how they rant about Trump with no basis in fact and fake news. It removes them farther from the truth and reality of our country. This is what will guarantee Donald Trump continued success and a second term in office. Who knows what the liberals will blame that on...should be interesting.
Trying to pull another fast one, eh Onusonus?
Did you not think that I would check the validity of your right wing rant and determine what was in fact true?
Well, you are wrong about America being among the "first to end slavery or grant universal women's suffrage.
Want proof, here it is....
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slav … 4920070322
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/fir … frage.html
P.S., the rest of the comment is just so much bull sh** as well. You have a lot of audacity putting this sort of rubbish into print.
Same guy who said the GOP tax cuts are stimulating the economy, even though they just took effect today.
Your claim is what's garbage Credence. Womens suffrage has a longer history in the US than simply the ratification of the 19th amendment. America's history is much more exceptional than what your liberal arts professors are pumping into the soft heads of innocent children. And the rest of the country is waking up from liberal fantasy land which is why Democrats are always the ones getting caught stuffing the ballot boxes.
Enjoy your oikophobic, Marxist, white guilt, America hating, cop bashing, flag stomping, Christian bashing, antisemetic, gender confused, anti-constitutional, party of self implosion.
Am I the only one who read this to the tune of Twelve Days of Christmas?
Equivocating again, are we Onusurus? I am well aware that women's suffrage was in place in many states and territories prior to America making such a national policy with the 19th Amendment. But, that is not what you said. And what about slavery, all quiet here, right?
America, being exceptional, depends on what it is we are talking about. Open inquiry rather than indoctrination is an alien concept for the Rightwinger. That is why you deplore higher education as students have the opportunity to think and reason for themselves, can't have too much of that in the Trump era, can we?
Don't you worry, we will get rid of Trump and consign him and his followers back to the root cellar or closet where they belong. And the wonderful thing is that he will do it to himself.
"Enjoy your oikophobic, Marxist, white guilt, America hating, cop bashing, flag stomping, Christian bashing, antisemetic, gender confused, anti-constitutional, party of self implosion."
Standard boilerplate, Onusurus, must you all be so predictable?
You stand debunked on that one and so lets move on to the next thing, what about slavery? We fought a war a lot of people died and it's gone. I stand by what I said, we are one of the first countries to abolish it. Also, in case you were unaware it was a bunch of white men who died to end slavery. So another liberal fallacy of white guilt goes in the trash can.
You see here's the problem, right here. You can't accept that the stock market has so much confidence in a capitalist president that it would react in the positive so swiftly, yet even a recent false report of his collusion with Russians by ABC (and touted by Joy Behar) caused a major dip in the market followed by a quick rebound after the truth was brought to light.
But lets talk about higher education. I'm all for it. Engineering, science, history, etc. Yes. Gender studies, social justice, cultural Marxism, no. You talk about the inferiority of indoctrination yet it is the liberal colleges that push a one sided argument without chance for objection except under the pretense of reprisal. It is undeniable that colleges across the country have incited violence over the threat of hosting a conservative speaker in their midst. Your side is guilty by far of destroying free speech in this nation. The irony of your leftist Antifa is that their methods are reminiscent of Hitler youth, and the thing they claim to be against is the thing that they use the most. Much in the same way Kim Jong Un calls his country a democratic peoples republic.
Out of curiosity, are you speaking from experience? Do you have a college degree?
Yes, I heard what you said but more reliable sources beyond your mere opinion say otherwise, did you look at it? Yes, I guess we were among the first, if being among the low end of the top twenty counts..
We fought a war to end secession; there were riots in the North protesting conscription as many Yankees were not keen to going to war just to free the slaves. Those same bunches of white men and their progeny were a party to both de facto and de jure discrimination that extended well beyond a century after the war. Every agonizing step of progress had to be fought for by blacks and the few progressive whites with blood and treasure in the struggle for 1st class citizenship. Imagine having to actually fight for a bill in Congress that prohibited lynching during the first quarter of the last century, who would have believed that? Any progress made usually didn’t come with any help from conservatives or rightwingers, by the way.
That is not much better than South Africa prior to Mandela’s takeover. Things to think about before you pull your arms out from their sockets in praise to all the benevolent whites of the period.
“You see here's the problem, right here. You can't accept that the stock market has so much confidence in a capitalist president that it would react in the positive so swiftly, yet even a recent false report of his collusion with Russians by ABC (and touted by Joy Behar) caused a major dip in the market followed by a quick rebound after the truth was brought to light. “
Of course capitalists are going to have confidence in a capitalist president, who lines their pockets as plutocrats and autocrats to the despair of everyone else, so what else is new? I would not count on any of this unless it can sustain itself over a greater period of time. You gave Obama no credit, so I am going to wait and see before Trump can truly be said to earn his wages on the job.
Education is education, social sciences is a part of education, gender, racial studies understanding of culture differences, etc, are a relevant part of the American social fabric and its relevance important in imparting the true meaning of American history beyond all the fables put forth by the Right. Conservatism has always been the villain, they supported the divine right of kings and lords, they said slavery was a positive good, and were always found in the resistance whenever there were civil rights to be extended to those that otherwise did not have them. Conservatism in America has a sordid history of the worship of the status quo, which was never going be to the benefit of the greater number in the long term.
I do not abide with any restriction of speech imposed against even the most horrid of rightwing advocates. That would make us just as guilty of muzzling opposing ideas as the rightwinger does routinely. I would tell my young friends to simply not attend; they will speak through their absence. The University cannot afford to invite speakers with no audience.. But, on the other hand, I would go to see what the enemy has in store and how to best counter them.
Even if I were not minority, I would rather be found on the side that opposes bigotry, fascism etc, than be associated with groups who have a history of advocating such things, yes?
Interesting, I am usually debating conservatives on the civil war. It was about slavery, the Republican party was formed out of the abolitionist movement, the south was actively attempting to spread slavery and conservative Republicans were there to preserve a very conservative idea that all men are created equal.
Liberals to this day do not believe people are created equal, which is why they want minorities attached to welfare, and to create a racist multicultural society rather than e pluribus unum, out of many, one.
That is correct, I am most certain that the war could probably have been averted if slavery were not in the equation. During the mid 19th century, certainly Republican could be fairly called the "progressive party". But today's GOP is not the one of my great, great, great grandfather.
Racist multiculturalism? what is that? What is the alternative? White Supremacy, and we know that is not going to wash, right? Who or what is represented by the 'unum' (one)?
What is the GOP alternative to welfare? Trumps says that jobs are to be the alternative but I have heard this from GOP Presidents before, I just as well be chasing the wind.
Preserving the intentions laid out in the declaration of independence was not then nor does it continue to be the modus operandi of liberals as they are defined today.
The KKK is more closely related to liberals than your conservative Republican great, great, great gramps, as liberalism remains to be synonymous with violence and coercion.
Wow, ya got me two ways. I had to look up"oikophobia" and I was just puttin' on my flag-stompin' boots. Kinda hard to stomp, though, when it's flying off my front porch. LOL
Now, you're insulting my hubby, a career military guy, Air Force/NSA, who did three tours in Viet Nam, and many more dangerous missions
I forgive you, though, this is a rough thread for Trump fans.
Relax, I'm not insulting your husband, he's probably the only reason your flag is right side up.
So let me tell you I'm not really a big fan of Trump. He's crass, he's morally repugnant, and he says a lot of stupid stuff. Lets be honest, when it comes to presidential elections we're not voting for our guy as much as we are voting against the other guy, (or gal in this case). In fact I think that the thing I like the most about Trump is that I am able to criticize him without being labeled a racist, sexist, etc.
Okay, but here's the thing. You refuse to give credit to Obama for the economic gains made over an eight year period, but you're willing to give Trump credit for the economy less than a year into his term. If you were truly fair, you wouldn't do that.
I did give Obama his due credit. Like I said before; the most food stamps the US has ever dolled out in a single presidential cycle, the trillion dollar deficit that he doubled down on, all those government shut downs, a disastrous healthcare bill that kicked millions of people off their insurance programs and penalized people for not participating, the failure with green energy, and those millions of dollars wasted in the failure of Solyndra, the 5% drop in labor force participation, in fact Obama's GDP growth never got higher than 1.5%, which hasn't happened since 1929, but I'm sure there's a Nobel prize in there somewhere.
by My Esoteric2 years ago
Obviously, I have my views, but I leave this as an open-ended question. There is no question he has become a lightening rod and has stirred great controversy in America, and now around the world. Is that...
by Randy Godwin8 months ago
What will Donald Trump's taxes reveal?It is a sure thing the Special Prosecutor will subpoena Trump's taxes. Will they reveal any monetary ties to the Russians or will they show he isn't as rich as he claims. I realize...
by Grace Marguerite Williams17 months ago
WHAT do you think of Donald Trump's statement that Obama founded ISIS?
by John Coviello6 years ago
Will Donald Trump's Presidential Run Ruin His Image?Donald Trump is saying some pretty controversal things, even as he campaigns as an undeclared candidate for President of the United States. Do you think Donald...
by My Esoteric14 months ago
The latest analysis of who benefits most (in terms of percentage change) from Donald Trump's tax plan. It was done by an Obama economic adviser AND agreed to by the conservative Tax Foundation (funded by...
by Susan Reid6 years ago
People who live in glass houses, even if they are the Trump Tower, should not throw stones.This is from TIME online (also saw it on CNN). The writeup was so good I had to copy it in its entirety.So should Trump put his...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.