Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Sumidor

Member Since: Sat Feb 25, 2017
Posts: 161
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 9,316
Subj: Re: The horrors of Donal Trump
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2018 at 03:14:21 am EST (Viewed 189 times)
Reply Subj: Re: The horrors of Donal Trump
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2018 at 10:24:17 pm EST (Viewed 196 times)



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump ignored Russian interference in the 2016 election (something attested to by all 17 intelligence agencies) while praising Putin (a despot who has murdered political opponents), and Trump has done little to prevent Russian interference from happening again in the 2018 elections.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump was not president in 2016. He had no ability to stop a foreign government from doing anything. Obama however was aware since at least the start of his second term that the Chinese and Russians were stepping up efforts to hack U.S. government agencies. The Chinese had a major success with stealing State Department information. Even left-leaning papers such as The Washington Post and NY Times questioned why Obama was "dawdling" in the face of Russian espionage. That Russian espionage and interference wasn't prevented in 2016 is no fault of Trump.



    Quote:
    I see your tactic throughout your post is to engage in whataboutism. To say someone else did something you think is as egregious as Trump and somehow that absolves Trump of his failures. It does not.


You are incorrect. I am not saying if someone else before Trump did something similar that it absolves him of his failures. His flaws stand on their own regardless of what others have done. What I am doing however, is provide support for my theory that for you, the issue is not the issue. The issue for you is that the politician you preferred did not win an election. You are starting from the point that Trump is wrong, and looking at every issue to see how you can pin that predetermined point to it.

I've searched the board for criticism from you of Obama during his presidency or Hillary during the election, and I'm not finding much. Even when there are similar issues, you were not bothered by the issue. There are no posts detailing horrors. You are only driven to criticize when someone you do not agree with politically act the same way as others have.


    Quote:
    My criticism here stands. Trump has refused to deal with Russian election meddling while in office and praises an evil man in Putin, going so far as to morally equivocate the U.S. with Russia. What a patriot that Trump is.


And this statement of yours helps support my theory. I agree that Trump's comment to Bill O'Reilly was extremely distasteful and repugnant. But when Obama told foreign nations that the U.S. "has shown arrogance, and been dismissive even derisive" you had no complaints. When he morally equivocated middle eastern terrorism with U.S. past deeds, you did did not express any outrage. When he stood in Turkey and claimed America should work on its own foundation and pointed to past torture, he morally equivocated waterboarding three terrorists with Turkey's systematic human rights violations over decades and torture of it's own citizens. Where is your expression of outrage? Where is your sarcastic claims of "What a patriot Obama is"? Show me one post from you calling those Obama statements "horrors". There likely is none. Because a president of the U.S. morally equivocating U.S. deeds with a horrible acts of foreign powers is not the problem for you. The problem for you, is that Donald Trump is the president.




    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump tried to undermine the Russia investigation by the FBI and Robert Mueller despite publically asking Russia to hack Hillary Clinton's emails during the campaign, which Russia followed through on.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        For the sarcastically challenged, Trump was making a joke. But your statement that Putin followed through after Trump's speech shows that you are misinformed. It would have been impossible to hack into the computer at that point. At the time of Trump's speech, Hillary's computer was already off-line and in the possession of the FBI.



    Quote:
    Russia didn't literally hack Clinton's computer, but they did hack into the Democratic National Committee's computers. The distinction is irrelevant. Joke or no, it was entirely, entirely inappropriate to invite a foreign power to meddle in the election, and it's certainly not a joke anymore. Trump and his people are being investigated for collusion with the Russians.



    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump fired FBI Director James Comey and said in an interview that he had Comey's Russian investigation on his mind when doing so. Trump had also asked Comey to stop investigating Michael Flynn, which itself could be considered tampering with law enforcement. Trump also asked Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, and Director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, to publicly deny any evidence of Russian collusion, and both refused.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Comey did a bad job all around. I think everyone can agree with that. Clinton even blames him for her losing the election. He turned the investigation into a complete circus. He deserved to get fired. No horrors.



    Quote:
    So you think Comey treated Clinton unfairly? I somehow doubt you do. Maybe Comey did deserve to get fired, but not for the reason Trump fired him, which might lead to a charge of Trump obstructing justice. Also Trump praised Comey for going after Clinton and continues to say law enforcement should go after Clinton even today so he certainly didn't fire Comey for that.


You are misinformed if you think Trump can be charged with obstruction of justice for firing Comey. Regardless of the reason for the firing. The head of the FBI falls under the executive branch, and the president can fire the head of the FBI for any reason at any time.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump revealed highly classified information to Russian foreign minister and ambassador Sergei Kislyak.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The information Trump shared with Kislyak was regarding ISIS, and with within his legal authority to do so. If there is one goal that the U.S. and Russia have in common it is the fight against islamic terrorists. Trump believes coordination on this would be beneficial to the U.S. Some reports are that ISIS has lost as high as 98% of their territory since Trump was elected. Where is the "horror"?



    Quote:
    You're missing the forest for the trees. Trump did it inadvertently. There's proper protocol to clear divulging of such information. Trump just blurt it out because he didn't know any better.


The meeting with Kislyak was a closed door meeting. You're going to have to provide evidence that the information shared was blurted out inadvertently. I'm looking for verification from those in the meeting.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump signed a tax bill that will increase inequality even more (and it was already a huge problem), add well over $1 trillion to the national debt, and will benefit himself financially.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Let's not forget the most important point. Money earned belongs to that person. Yes, we all need to help fund the government, but it is not the government's money, which it then decides how much to dole out to us.



    Quote:
    Actually it's not important and a totally Irrelevant point, but I won't give you a lesson in social contract theory right now.


You won't give me a lesson? That's okay, no lesson required. I've read Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. It's not random that I listed Locke first, I agree with his ideas for the most part when they conflict with Rousseau and Hobbes. Locke believed that men form civil societies and submit themselves to laws in order to protect their liberty and property. I would be completely stunned if you can show me something from him contradicting my point above that each man owns the fruits of his own labor, as opposed to the government owning the fruits of our labor. You may favor other philosophers' ideas over Locke relating to social contract theory, but don't accuse others as needing a lesson if they prefer a different philosopher from you.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      I disagree that inequality is a huge problem.



    Quote:
    No big surprise there.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      I would rather make $8 to my boss's $10, then have us each earn $5. The latter is equal, but the former provides me with a higher quality of living. The quality of living which separates much of today's inequality is the difference of being able to afford luxury items. I don't believe it's the government's role to have that detailed a role in our lives.



    Quote:
    Your example could hardly be more of a joke. The difference isn't between $8 and $10. People can get paid $15 an hour today while the heads of their company make $4,000 an hour or far more. The average CEO of a large U.S. company makes 270 or 350 times the wage of the average worker:



    Quote:
    http://fortune.com/2017/07/20/ceo-pay-ratio-2016/



    Quote:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/25/the-pay-gap-between-ceos-and-workers-is-much-worse-than-you-realize/



    Quote:
    The net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans is more than the net worth of the bottom half of all Americans. The combined assets of over 150 million people is less than that of the wealthiest 400 people. The average net worth of the lower 50% of households in 2013 was $11,000. Think about that. Think about that when you dismiss today's inequality as "the difference of being able to afford luxury items." 1 in 8 Americans live in poverty. You're being willfully blind if you don't realize that tens of millions are struggling just to make ends meet. Your belief that this is "not a huge problem" is exactly what's wrong with the Republican Party.


I'm not ignoring that many families across the country aren't struggling to make ends meet. But I have different ideas than you do regarding the cause of the problem, and the steps for improvement. My ideas don't involve forced reallocation of wealth.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      You and I agree that the national debt is a problem. But I think the problem is on the spending side. I don't believe Americans are taxed too little, I believe the government spends too much. Please see some examples from a prior conversation.



    Quote:
    Trump campaigned on people keeping their Social Security and Medicare benefits, he's proposed a $200 billion infrastructure bill, and he's pushing big increases in military spending when U.S. military spending is already bigger than the next 8 countries in the world put together. Tell me where are the cuts going to come from? Those are by far the biggest line items. Cutting anything else is peanuts.


There is no politician at the moment putting forth serious plans to cut the budget in meaningful ways. All are afraid of losing votes from those who benefit from areas cut. This is not specific to Trump, it is not specific to any party.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      The tax bill raises the standard deduction, and tax cuts provided to business have created jobs, raised wages, and allowed employers to pay out higher bonuses. This is not a horror.



    Quote:
    62% of the bill's benefits go to the top 1%. That is a horror. When tax breaks for the middle class expire, 83% of the benefits will go to the top 1%. Why add what is actually going to be $1.5-2 trillion to the national debt on a bill that will help those who need it least? That is a horror. If you just gave $2 trillion to the poorest 40 million people, there would be no poverty in the United States. But yeah, let's give it to the people, who according to you, can buy more luxury items.


Of course tax reductions will go to those who paid the most taxes. You can't return what wasn't taken to begin with. The top 1% of earners pays almost half of all federal income taxes. The top 1% pays more than the bottom 90%. The top 20% pay approximately 85% of all federal income taxes. So when tax rates are reduced, it will be the top earners that see the biggest benefit.

I agree the individual tax cuts should not have been set to expire.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump chooses to engage with foreign leaders and diplomats on property he owns thus benefiting himself financially.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I'm not aware of the specifics here, but I do generally agree that avoiding even the appearance of impropriety is preferable. However, if no laws are being broken, this is hardly a "horror".



    Quote:
    Wow, your standards are low. Anything that doesn't break the law can't be horrible.


I didn't say "anything that doesn't break the law can't be horrible". I'm not sure if you are deliberately twisting my words. I am saying: In this case, if Trump is breaking no laws by engaging with foreign leaders on his own property, then I'm not bothered by it. I wouldn't be bothered it regardless of who is president. This doesn't affect my life. I am more concerned with policy.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump has eroded standards of propriety and decency expected from a national leader by behaving with a thin-skinned temperament, pettiness, demagoguery, and racism. He has no experience in government and often doesn't know what he's talking about so he bluffs. When he gets called on his bluff, he has to lie. When he is criticized for his lie, he goes on the attack, and he looks unseemly throughout this whole cycle that occurs over and over again.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Remove the racism, and erosion of standards, and I agree with much of this. Trump was not a politician when he ran for office. He is very unfamiliar with how much of the government operates. As was in the news recently, Democrats have said he did not know the difference between funding and appropriation of the wall. This however, is not a horror. These are terms that most private citizens would need explained to them. No matter who is in office, there is a very steep learning curve.



    Quote:
    That the President of the United States needs these things explained to him is a horror. No one in recent history has entered office as unprepared as Trump. Also Trump is plainly racist. But I suppose you believe him when he says he's the least racist person ever.


I will reintroduce my theory that for you, the issue is not the issue. The issue is that Donald Trump is president. I honestly believe that the vast majority of intelligent people who don't follow politics religiously, would be similarly confused if they were told that something was "funded" didn't mean that money was made available. I honestly believe the average intelligent person, when hearing "well, it's funded, but nothing was appropriated" would say "WTF does that mean? Do I have the money or not? Stop playing semantic games". That you find it a horror, says more about your wanting to find things to dislike about Trump than it says about Trump himself.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Having no experience in government is a positive factor in many people's opinion.



    Quote:
    That's a nice attempt at spin.


It's not spin. Are you denying that part of Trump's appeal was that he was a Washington outsider? Are you denying that part of Trump's appeal was that he would do things differently than the rotating Bushes and Clintons have done for 30 years? Having no political experience absolutely was a positive in some people's eyes. maybe not to you. But you can't deny it wasn't a draw for many others.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Having someone who thinks like a business man rather than someone only worried about currying favor with lobbying groups was one of the factors that made him attractive to voters.

    Then it must be doubly unfortunate that Trump curries favor with lobbying groups.
      Quote:

        Quote:
        So if he's unclear on some of the congressional specific lingo, it's anticipated. You may disagree, but there's no horror.



    Quote:
    The complaint isn't about his not understanding some lingo. It's that he behaves horribly and indecently!


I'll agree that some of his behavior lacks finesse, but I've gotten over it ages ago. And based on the rampant misleading coverage by Trump-hating press, it's hard to tell what's accurate, and what's not. I was tricked some time ago by the very dishonest coverage by CNN when Trump was feeding fish in the koi pond. CNN showed the Japanese PM, scooping out a small bit with a spoon, then they showed Trump dumping out the whole box with a misleading headline. My thought was "That looks bad!". When complaints piled up of his boorish and clumsy behavior, I agreed. Other media outlets such as Bloomberg followed suit, and the mockery continued for days. However, CNN deceptively edited the video. When watching the whole video online, it is very clear that Trump watches PM Shinzo Abe, and carefully follows his lead. For a while they both scoop out small amounts with spoons. Then Abe dumps his full tray of food into the pond. Trump follows, and dumps his remaining food as well. I'm not trying to make you pop a blood vessel with my next comment....but that was "fake news". It was purposely deceptively edited, and spread everywhere. Since then, I'm focused solely on policy. I don't have time to worry about what may or may not be true reporting or manufactured propaganda by either side. Policy, policy, policy.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      And he is at times very thin skinned. It's not a becoming character trait, but I wouldn't label it a "horror".



    Quote:
    It's not a horror if he were some random guy on the street, but it's a horror in the context of him being the President of the United States. Trump is a joke to the rest of the world with people regularly questioning his sanity. That is a horror. I understand that given your biases, nothing he could do could be a horror to you.


Everyone has biases. To treat mine as more severe or worse than anyone else's (including your own) would be wrong. There are absolutely things Trump can do that would be considered a horror. But maybe we just have different definitions of the word "horror". I reserve that word for truly horrible things. A politician saying something I disagree with , or acting in a way I wouldn't prefer is "unfortunate", but not a "horror". My life goes on.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump lies incessantly while simultaneously trying to discredit the press and calling the free press the enemy. Examples of fragrant lies include Trump making false claims that Mexico will pay for his wall, that no one on his campaign staff had contact with the Russians, that 3-5 millions illegals voting in the 2016 election, that the Obama administration wiretapped him, that he had bigger inauguration crowds than Obama, that it wasn't him on the Access Hollywood tape AFTER Trump already apologized for it, that an aircraft carrier was heading to Korea when it was actually going the opposite direction; Trump has told hundreds of outright lies, again demeaning his office: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I think we're not going to agree about much of what the NY Times calls lies. This gets into too much detail looking at each one. If you are interested, you can see many of my comments in the thread below, but I don't have the time to go through all these again. The post also lists 15 lies by Obama. Politicians lie, I wish they didn't, but it's what they do. You seem to be holdings Trump to a different standard than his predecessor.



    Quote:
    Trump lies to a different standard than ANY predecessor. He lies at least five times as much as anyone who's held the office in modern times. But more whataboutism from you.


Again, not "whataboutism", but just showing that it's not having a president who lies that bothers you. What bothers you is that this particular president has different ideas than your preferred candidate. If I'm wrong, show me a post where you criticized Obama for any of his lies. But I don't think I am wrong. Obama's lies didn't bother you because you agreed with his end goals.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Despite campaigning on hiring "the best people," Trump poorly chose advisors/cabinet members resulting in poor performance, controversy, resignations, and firings - here is a ridiculously long list of these people: Michael Flynn, Sean Spicer, Anthony Scaramucci, Steve Bannon, Tom Price, Steve Mnuchin, Jared Kushner, Reince Priebus, Omarosa Manigault, Ryan Zinke, David Shulkin, Scott Pruitt, Sebastian Gorka, Mike Dubke, Jeff Sessions, Rick Perry, David Friedman.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I agree some of these names didn't work out, but I disagree on others. You may not like Rick Perry's politics, you may not like Steve Mnuchin's ideas, you may not like Sebastian Gorka...but that doesn't quality as a "horror". I'm sure many republicans disliked members of Obama's administration such as Holder, Napolitano, Rice, Van Jones. Should that start a list of "The horrors of Barack Obama"? I say, no.



    Quote:
    The Obama people you named don't remotely compare to the list I gave. Just to touch on the ones you named: Rick Perry didn't realize his own Department of Energy oversaw the U.S. nuclear arsenal. That's just embarrassing. Steve Mnuchin used government aircraft to fly to Kentucky to view the eclipse to the tune of 26,900 tax payer dollars. This is one of seven trips Mnuchin took instead of flying commercially and thus cost the government $811,800. Mnuchin even requested a military jet to fly him on his honeymoon. Mnuchin is a horror. Gorka is a know-nothing Muslim basher affiliated with fascist Hungarian extremist groups.


Of course for you, republican complaints about Obama's administration don't compare to democrat complaints about Trump's administration. You agree with one politically, and disagree with the other. Your complains are 100% partisan. You're upset that Mnunchin is not flying commercially? Are you under the belief that this happens only in republican administrations. Seriously, pause, and think about this. There is no reason other than partisanship to complain about republicans flying on the taxpayer dime, but not having complained about the same thing when democrats do the exact same thing. This isn't "whataboutism", just showing that the issue for you is not the issue.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump has failed to provide much help to U.S. territory Puerto Rico after it was devastated by a hurricane; months later, Puerto Rico is still a mess.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This is blatantly not true. You are misinformed. Trump has approved federal funding for 90% of the costs to rebuild Puerto Rico. This includes the power grid, hospitals, bridges and roads. Normally the federal government funds roughly 75% of these building efforts.



    Quote:
    One third of Puerto Rico is still without power today. That is to say over one million people have no electricity 4 months after the hurricane. Trump is the President. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory. What is Trump doing about it? Nothing. He probably would be if Puerto Ricans were mostly white people speaking English.


I just informed you that he agreed for the federal government to pick up 90% of the costs of rebuilding. Things are moving at the speed of the federal government, which is to say, very slow. This isn't a Trump issue. You have no evidence he is hindering the process, but you are just looking to pin something on him. It's as I said earlier, you go into every issue thinking, "what has Trump screwed up here", rather than looking at the issue objectively.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and thus gave up a crucial bargaining chip in Middle East peace negotiations for absolutely nothing except riling up Palestinians who will trust the U.S. even less now. 128 countries including most of the United States' closest allies repudiated Trump for this move.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Whether or not you consider this a horror likely comes down to your opinion on Israel. Jerusalem is, by all standards used to recognize a nations's capital, Israel's capital. Its Prime Minister sits there, its parliament sits there, its supreme court sits there. Please let's not split this off into an Israel/Palestine conversation. I have no desire for that on this board. Bottom line, Trump recognized a capital based on how all other capitals are based.



    Quote:
    You didn't answer a single point I made with that explanation that completely ignores the significance of Jerusalem.


It's not that I was trying to ignore your point. I think I have shown a willingness to answer all points. But I didn't understand what you were saying regarding a bargaining chip? What would the bargain be? Also....time is limited, and I can't always address every single item. However, if you think I am avoiding something purposefully, then feel free to call me out. Time is short though...


    Quote:

      Quote:
      In 2008 Obama said "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided". Was this a horror? Will you be following up this post with "the horrors of Barack Obama"?



    Quote:
    More whataboutism. You conveniently omit the part in which Obama misspoke and backtracked right away.


Not whataboutism, but my point is you apply different standards. Your outrage is selective, and therefore I can't take it seriously. Your reply here shows a vast contrast in how you interpret things. Obama backtracked right away, therefore in your eye, no harm. I have no proof obviously, but my suspicion is that if Trump claimed Jerusalem the capital of Israel and then backtracked, you would claim he's adding to confusion and unrest in the region. He'd be a buffoon who doesn't understand the importance of what he says.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      The U.N. has included Saudi Arabia on the Women's Rights Council, and China on the Human Rights Council, as well as other insane appointments. It regularly does nothing in the face of true human abuses. It wouldn't even criticize Zimbabwe for it's terrible massacres and human rights abuses. If you think I am going to take their opinion to mean anything, you are incorrect.



    Quote:
    More whataboutism. You also use the absurd logic that because the U.N. did something wrong, it is therefore not possible for them to do something right.


You misunderstand me. It's not that the U.N. has done "something" wrong. It's that they are a corrupt organization, full of untrustworthy bureaucrats, whose primary goal is to gather power for themselves. They have absolutely no moral authority to criticize the U.S. or any other democratically elected government.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump has threatened to leave the Iran deal, which by all indications is working, but leaving the deal has no upside because Europe will not reinstitute sanctions since it wasn't Iran who broke the deal, and no longer having to honor the deal, Iran will be able to pursue nuclear weapons immediately.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Even during Obama's presidency, Iran violated the nuclear deal multiple times. You are incorrect to state they have not. Even the Huffington Post in 2016 listed out ways Iran has breached the deal. You are misinformed on this issue.





You clearly stated "Europe will not reinstitute sanctions since it wasn't Iran who broke the deal". Iran has broke the deal. They have broke the deal in multiple ways. Reading the article you posted, I see a few things:
- Iran went over the 130 ton on hard water because they thought it was an estimate??? I no more believe that than I would the young boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar, who says he's looking for broccoli.
- A quote: Albright, who agrees with the president that Iran is “not in full compliance,”


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump made the campaign promise, "You're going to end up with great healthcare for a fraction of the price, and that's going to take place immediately after we go in. Okay? Immediately. Fast. Quick." and Trump failed to get that done despite having Republican control of both houses of Congress, nevermind that the Republican bill was not going to achieve that promise anyway and was hated by the public. The CBO analysis of the bill showed that 23 million people would lose their health insurance under it and that it would raise premiums by 20% by 2019.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I'm honestly not sure what Trump wants in a new health insurance model, so I cannot say much about that. We will have to wait until a new deal is made.



    Quote:
    We know what Trump was willing to pass and it was a horror that would have caused the loss of health insurance to over 20 million people.



    Quote:

      Quote:
      However...if not following through on heathcare promises qualifies as a horror...Obama's "If you like your health plan, you can keep it" was Politifact's lie of the year. He also promised costs would go down, but costs rose after the bill. Was Obama a "horror", or are you holding different presidents to different standards?



    Quote:
    More whataboutism.


I'll explain this each time you accuse me of whataboutism. You are demonstrating on many issues, that extremely similar situations have only driven you to post complaints when Trump is involved. Nearly identical health insurance lies from Obama, the "lie of the year" even, was not enough to rile you up enough to share your outrage. Think about this. Why does Trump's lie about healthcare bother you, but Obama's doesn't to the same degree?


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump ended the Affordable Care Act's mandate which will result in turmoil in health insurance markets starting in 2019 and result in the higher rates and millions losing their health coverage.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Neither of us can predict the future regarding your claim of turmoil in 2019. I suspect things will be okay one way or another. This one is definitely disqualified as a "horror". You can't include events that haven't happened yet, and may not happen.



    Quote:
    I work in the health insurance industry and I talk to strategic planning experts, all of whom hate hate hate the uncertainty Trump has created in the industry. The whole point of insurance is to pool money so that outlier situations (extreme illness or injury) are affordable. Removing the mandate is removing the ability to pool the money. You are left with insurance companies having to pay with much smaller pools. That means much higher premiums. It's as simple as that.


There is one specific word above that I truly love! Maybe we can find some common ground. "Outlier". Insurance would be more affordable if it didn't cover so much. If people paid more out of pocket, prices would have to come down.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        With help from the Republican Senate, Trump stole a Supreme Court nomination from the Democrats causing an even more dramatic increase in partisanship.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Supreme Court nominations are controlled by the senate. This was not a decision made by Trump, and was done before he was in office. Disqualified as a "horror of Donald Trump".



    Quote:
    The Republican Senate stole the Supreme Court nomination, but Trump nevertheless made the appointment. If he wanted to heal the country, he would have appointed a moderate.


Any politician is going to make the best of a given scenario. You're faulting Trump for doing something that nobody would have done differently.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump has nominated numerous judges with literally no experience to the courts.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        It isn't a requirement. And this isn't at all the first time it's been done. Even as high as the Supreme Court, there have been 40 U.S. Supreme Court judges without prior judicial experience. My guess is that you are more upset at the political leanings of these new judges rather than their experience.



    Quote:
    The Supreme Court is different from all other courts so using them as an example makes no sense.


I disagree. It's the highest court in the land, and has final authority to overturn verdicts of lower courts. If it is acceptable that Supreme Court judges have no judicial experience, then why would lower courts be held to a higher standard? I'm not saying I understand why this is the case. I'm not a lawyer. But looking at what Trump did, it seems it's not as unusual as one would think.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump broke federal guidelines and traditions on pardoning and pardoned Joe Arpaio for his racial profiling of suspects, making the country even more divisive.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This idea of "making the country divisive" always amazes me. If a democrat president does something that republicans don't like, the message is "Elections have consequences", but when republicans do something democrats don't like, they are being "divisive". It's a nonsense partisan argument.



    Quote:
    Way to rationalize and avoid the specifics that make this a horror.


I'm not avoiding....just running out of steam at some point. This is a long post! Presidential pardons are frequently controversial. Those who liked Trump liked this decision. Those who already hated Trump, hated this decision. I'm not surprised, and don't have much to say.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump morally equivocated White Supremacists in Charlottesville and their protesters after a White Supremacist killed a protester there.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Ah, yes.....you and I had lots to say about this back in August. See below for a refresher. We are simply not going to agree on this one. I suggest we don't clog up the board by rehashing this again.

        Quote:

          Quote:
          https://comicboards.com/php/show.php?rpy=community-2017082302532552



    Quote:
    Yeah, thanks for posting that and reminding me that I won that debate.


I thought this was a conversation. I didn't realize it was a debate. So excuse my need for these next two questions. What precisely are the rules for scoring these debates? And who were the judges that proclaimed you the winner?

It's just a conversation....sharing ideas. You can't win a conversation.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump promoted faked anti-Muslim videos from far right racist ultranationalist hate group Britain First.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Correct me if I am wrong...the three videos were absolutely real, but one of them had a fake caption. The video of a muslim man destroying a statue of the virgin Mary was real. The video of a group of muslims pushing a man off the top of the roof to his death was real. The video of a Dutch boy on crutches getting beat by a muslim was real. The fake part was that the muslim beating the boy on crutches was called a "migrant" in the original tweet, but he had in fact been born in the Netherlands.



    Quote:
    The Dutch boy was neither Muslim nor a migrant. The Muslims killing a person was during rioting in Egypt and two of the men were sentenced to death for the act, so it was hardly Islam promoting what's depicted. The Virgin Mary statue video is unverified but hardly meaningful. But again, you're missing the forest for the trees! Trump propped up a hate group! For an American president to do that is horrible.


I think you misread my post. I didn't claim the boy on crutches was a muslim or a migrant. The man who beat him was a muslim, who was also mis-labelled as a migrant.

Some things just aren't that big a deal to me. We disagree on how much energy to devote to these things. I will grant you that Trump is impulsive. He'll say things, and will tweet without considering all angles, and without double checking all facts. That's a problem, and I wish the president didn't do that. He reacts sometimes before taking in all information. This is one such case. He didn't know anything about Britain First when sending those tweets. You may think it's a cop-out, but I'm more concerned with what policy he is working to implement in the U.S. than tweets. To you it's a horror, I get that, but we disagree.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump supported homophobic and racist extremist GOP Senate candidate Roy Moore who had allegations of sexual assault and relationships with underage girls.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I'm not going to defend Roy Moore, but if a politician defending questionable people in their own party is a "horror", then the whole lot of them are guilty. Bill Clinton has been accused of rape and sexual assault. Hillary defended him for decades. She got a child rapist off charges who she believed to have been guilty. Recent revelations are that she protected an adviser who committed sexual harrasment by moving him elsewhere rather than firing him. I'm doubting that had Hillary won, you would be posting today about "the horrors of Hillary Clinton".



    Quote:
    Ah, more whataboutism. The Clintons have done horrible things. No doubt about it. Most of it still less horrible than Trump, but you can't bring yourself to say Trump's ever been horrible. Funny that.


I provided some criticism about Trump, and will provide more if you would like. However, on this board, that's like bringing sand to the beach. Since you asked, in addition to the above, I disagree with big parts of his ideas on healthcare. You will likely not be surprised, but I favor free market ideas over government intervention. I didn't see enough differences in his ideas and the ACA. But different from you, I do not consider people "horrible" who I disagree with. I simply understand they have different experiences, and priorities from living a different life.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump's juvenile trading of insults with Kim Jong Un degrades the dignity of his office.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        I wish he would tweet less. I wish he had someone editing the tweets. But that's not likely to happen. The claims of "degrading the dignity of his office" are partisan attacks. Obama was attacked for the same thing when he did a video of himself doing goofy smiles with a selfie-stick. He was also attacked for doing comedy shows like "Between Two Ferns". It all depends on your point of view. I have no interest in any of it, it doesn't affect my life in the slightest. I'm more concerned about policy.



    Quote:
    The big difference is that attacks on Obama for degrading the office were partisan attacks. Donald Trump really is degrading the office. You even imply that you're aware of it, you just can't bring yourself to actually criticize Trump because of your own admitted partisanship.


Incorrect, I'll criticize any politician when I disagree with
their policies. I'm just not into the whole thing of jumping on Obama for playing golf or being a secret muslim trying to take down the country, or Trump playing golf, and being a secret Russian agent destroying the country. It's all nonsense to me. You claim one is partisan, but the other is super serious. I disagree.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump nominated someone who is not a scientist to be chief scientist of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        The role was not "chief scientist". The role was undersecretary of the Department of Agriculture. Please correct me if I am wrong. We might be referring to different appointments. The title matters because it relays information about his responsibilities. Either way, someone can be deemed qualified to run a department without having prior expertise in the details of that department. Obama nominated Leon Panetta to head the CIA even though Panetta had absolutely zero espionage experience. I've searched this board for the words "horrors" and "Obama", but I find no posts from you listing this a horror. I am beginning to think something qualifies as a "horror" to you only if it's done by a politician for which you have not voted.



    Quote:
    More whataboutism. The aim of this tactic is to change the subject to what someone else did or did not do so that we don't have to talk about what Trump did. The subject is Trump. If you use whataboutism, all you're admitting to is that you can't actually defend Trump.


You're wrong for two reasons:

1 - You claim that I didn't defend Trump's action here, but I did. I plainly said "someone can be deemed qualified to run a department without having prior expertise in the details of that department". It happens all the time in businesses.

2 - I had zero problems with Obama nominating Panetta. That wasn't whataboutism, and it wasn't meant to distract from Trump. I was providing a prior example to demonstrate that what Trump did was not unique.

However...your selective outrage continues to show. How is it that you had no complaints to share about the top guy running the U.S. secret foreign intelligence agency having no experience in espionage, but it's a horror when an undersecretary of agriculture lacks experience? This isn't a rhetorical question. I would love to get your answer on this. Why did the latter situation prompt you to post your displeasure, but the former didn't? If you ignore the rest of this entire post, and just answer this one question, I'd be fine with that.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump set a precedent to undermine all of your predecessor's achievements; this could mean Republican and Democratic administrations might spend most of their time repealing what went before instead of traditionally respecting the will of the voters on keeping most of the legislation passed by those whom the voters elected.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Do you really believe this is a precedent set by Donald Trump? You should read more history. The very first party change of the U.S. presidency was from the Federalists under Adams to the Republicans under Jefferson (not the same republican party existing today). Jefferson was very quick to reverse some of what Adams instituted. There is no tradition of upholding everything which came from the prior administration.



    Quote:
    I'm not talking about upholding everything, but no administration tries to overturn everything either and that's what Trump has been doing because he too almost can't pass anything legislatively despite his party holding both houses of Congress.


Past presidents haven't tried to overturn as much because it's never been as easy. It's has nothing to do with Trump breaking precedent. Past presidents relied more on working with congress to pass laws. Those are much harder to change. Obama chose not to go through congress, and instead used his pen and his phone to do much through EOs. The disadvantage there is that EOs are easily undone by the next president.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      In truth Trump would have a much harder time undoing Obama's policies if Obama had tried harder to pass legislation through congress. Instead, he famously claimed to be able to use his phone and his pen, and passed some higher level items as executive orders rather than as laws. This is absolutely the case had he worked with the senate to pass a treaty with Iran rather than a "deal" which is not binding.



    Quote:
    I see you're criticizing Obama on this but not on Trump doing the same thing. Your whataboutism only works in one direction.


Read what I said again. There is no critique of Obama. It is a fact that he used EOs to some of what would become his biggest successes in the eyes of democrats. EOs are easily overturned where laws are much harder. That's just the simple case. No critique.


    Quote:

      Quote:

        Quote:
        Trump has played golf almost one third of the time he's been in office despite saying during the campaign that he wouldn't play golf at all while in office. This is two and a half times as much golf Obama played and for which Trump criticized Obama.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        This golf thing was boring when the republicans used it against Obama. It's equally boring now. No horrors to be seen.



    Quote:
    What is horrible is not the golf playing. It's the blatant hypocrisy. It was Trump doing the "boring" criticism against Obama, and now he's doing the very thing he criticized but much, much more of it than the person he criticized.


One politician criticizing another politician, then doing the same thing once elected? I'm about as shocked as Captain Renault when he discovered there was gambling in Rick's Cafe.

And it involves playing golf? Such a scandal! I just can't muster up the energy to care.


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.132 on Windows 7
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software