Okay, I'm convinced. I fully believe you now that you don't pay attention to the news. That was a prodigious display of ignorance of current events.
Faith writes:
You can't just mix up political policies with personal failings as if they are all equivalent.
You're just making up a substanceless criticism. I never implied equivalence. It's a list of Trump misdeeds, lies and failings. Naturally some are more significant and grievous than others. Would you like me to divide them into categories for you?
As I've said, I haven't been following politics lately,...
You said you weren't following the news, not that it was just politics you weren't following. How could you follow the news but not politics? I don't see how that's possible. Except for local papers the headlines in any newspaper are about Washington, almost always Trump related. I don't watch television news, but I assume that all national news broadcasts begin with the news out of Washington, again almost always Trump related. What you say doesn't add up.
...but I can't miss the Trump bashing by the media and the occasional conservative opinion in the midst of the leftist bombardment.
This still doesn't add up. You say you don't follow politics, but when it comes to Trump you apparently do. Why not just fess up? You follow politics, especially when it comes to Trump.
But, given this admittedly inadequate position, I'll give some opinions about your opinions:
I didn't offer opinions but facts that can be backed up by videos, tweets, texts of executive orders, etc. Your post offers nothing of any truth or substance. All your post really says is, "Trump's my man, no matter what."
About the womanizing, Did the Left defend Clinton's womanizing?
The duplicity of politicians is why I refuse to affiliate with any political party or political philosophy. Good examples are the deplorable behavior of both Democrats and Republican during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the far more reprehensible behavior of Republicans under Trump, in other words their proclivity for playing politics at the expense of the country.
If I have a political philosophy it is the Golden Rule.
If you're wondering why I criticized both Democrats and Republicans for the Monica Lewinsky scandal, I denounce,
vilify, censure, excoriate, revile, deplore and castigate Bill Clinton for taking advantage of a young intern, I condemn Democrats for supporting the unsupportable, and I condemn Republicans for the politicized impeachment circus.
It's not something I'd want to defend but I'm more interested in his policies than his sins.
What are you really saying here? If you're saying that his cheating and philandering doesn't bear on his job as president, I agree with you, but it does tell us about the man. If you're referring to his comments about how he treats women, for instance, his comments to Billy Bush:
quote:
I’m automatically attracted to beautiful women I just start kissing them, it’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab 'em by the pussy."
This tells us even more about the man, that he's predatory and an abuser. Famous men displaying these qualities are losing their jobs left and right these days, from Al Franken to Harvey Weinstein to Bill Cosby to Bill O'Reilly and on and on. Why not Trump?
He did enact tariffs that are causing businesses hardships that are already causing layoffs.
This is a complicated issue. Perhaps it has some negative effects but there must also be positive effects or he wouldn't be doing it. You only give one side of it.
I did not give one side of it. The tariffs on steel and aluminum were to help the steel and aluminum industry. That goes without saying, nothing need be said (except perhaps to the ignorant), and so of course I didn't mention the obvious. I gave the side that that you're ignoring, that the impact of higher steel and aluminum prices on industries that use those products is making them less competitive by pricing them out of markets, thereby causing them to layoff workers. There's nothing complicated about it.
I provided you a link to this article from the Reno Gazette Journal back in
Message 187, but you never addressed it:
Escalating tariff war starting to impact Nevada businesses. A-1 Steel in Sparks is seeing price increases in steel of 25-40%. Construction costs are rising, make houses less affordable. The US Chamber of Commerce estimates that 367,000 jobs and $107 million exports from Nevada will be affected by the tariffs.
You say, "There must also be positive effects." What would those positive effects be? Have you seen them yet? If not, when would you expect to see them? What about the traditional conservative position that free trade is a cornerstone of international relations?
He did say he takes Putin's word over his own intelligent agencies.
Again I don't know much about this,...
Oh, please. You say you "can't miss the Trump bashing" but you somehow missed an entire week of news coverage about the Trump/Putin meeting? Could you at least try to be credible?
So obviously you heard a great deal about this, nobody could have missed it who didn't live on a desert island, you're just not going to admit it.
...but I have heard conservative complaints about the politics of some in our intelligence agencies. In other words, perhaps he had good reason to prefer Putin's word.
The NSA, the FBI, the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence all agree that Russia meddled in the 2016 election through social media, through compromising of email servers that made possible the release of emails from John Podesta and from the DNC, and through infiltrating state election computer networks. They all agree that Russia is repeating these efforts for this year's election. For example, the server of Claire McCaskill (D-MO) was just attacked by the Russians. Robert Mueller has indicted 12 Russian intelligence agents and 13 Russians with ties to the Russian Internet Research Agency (most worked there).
And your response to this is that "perhaps he had good reason to prefer Putin's word." Do you think that if he had good reason that he might have passed that "good reason" on to our intelligence agencies? Do you think that if there really was any coherent reason that he wouldn't have waffled back and forth for a week after returning to Washington? Do you have any reason based upon fact for this touching faith in Trump's good reason, especially given his proclivity for lying and winging it?
He did say the North Korean problem is solved when it isn't.
That is a work in progress with what looks like some success in spite of the intransigence of the Korean dictator. He did something at least.
Well, yes, he did do something. He gave up joint military exercises with South Korea, gave enormous prestige and status to Kim Jung Un just by meeting with him, and he gained nothing regarding North Korea's nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile North Korea's efforts continue:
North Korea is working on new missiles, U.S. spy agencies say. And last week Secretary of State Mike Pompeo confirmed in Senate testimony that North Korean factories "continue to produce fissile material" for nuclear weapons.
What it appears Trump did is perpetuate the same problem all past administrations have had with North Korea, namely that talks are just stalling tactics and distractions while North Korea continues to make nuclear progress. That North Korea was going to do this to Trump just as it had to all past presidents was just as obvious as that Lucy is going to pull away the football.
So what is it regarding the North Korean nuclear threat that Trump gained with North Korea? Please be explicit and factual.
He did order LBGT's out of the military.
That is reasonable conservative policy in my opinion.
Why is it reasonable? Have they not hands, organs dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick them, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die? And if you wrong them, shall they not revenge? If they are like you in the rest, they will resemble you in that. (Apologies to Shylock in the Merchant of Venice)
LGBT's are people just like you and me. The military is challenging Trump's order in court.
He did refuse to make his tax return public.
He isn't required to.
He lied and lied. During the election he lied when he said he couldn't make his latest tax return public (that would have been his 2015 tax return) until an IRS audit concluded. That was a lie. There is nothing in the IRS code that prevents a tax return under audit from being made public. Now, over two years later, that audit has undoubtedly concluded, yet Trump still won't make his 2015 tax return public, so he lied about making it public when the audit concluded.
If Trump had nothing to hide he would make his tax return public. Obviously he has something to hide. Given that he lies pathologically we can be pretty sure that much of what he's said about his finances is untrue. He probably lied about how rich he is, he probably lied about how much taxes he paid, and he undoubtedly lied about not benefiting from his own tax cuts, since real estate businesses undeniably benefited.
He did attack the media as the enemy of the American people.
These days many of us agree that they are.
But not for any factual reasons that you've been able to bring to light in this thread that is purportedly dedicated to making the case that the media is out to get Trump.
He is continuously trying to obstruct and end the Mueller investigation.
There is reason to believe that Mueller is conducting a politically motivated bogus investigation.
What
factual and supportable reason would that be?
He did cut taxes for the rich, including himself.
This is standard conservative policy to keep money in the hands of individuals where they use it for development and jobs instead of the government which just spends it.
You're not getting it. Percentage-wise he cut taxes for the rich more than for the poor or middle class. In other words, percentage-wise he got a bigger tax cut than you did. How do you feel about that?
He is causing the largest deficits in US history.
Not that I've heard. Obama already did a bang-up job on that one.
Not that you've heard? It's been all over the news. The OMB (Office of Management and Budget under cabinet secretary Mick Mulvaney) has projected a deficit over $1 trillion for 2019, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) a little under. Both the OMB and CBO have projected deficits over $1 trillion for 2020.
He refused to implement the Russian sanctions enacted by Congress until forced to.
Perhaps those were politically motivated too.
The sanctions on Russia were passed by the Republican Congress to punish Russia for interfering in our election. This is just another example of Trump's resistance to acknowledging anything indicating he didn't win the election on his own. He's not rational on the subject.
He did refuse to divest himself of his businesses and so is making money off the presidency, just as lawsuits now allege.
I thought he'd cooperated with whatever that requirement is.
It isn't a requirement, but it's something all presidents have done to prevent the appearance of impropriety in office. Trump didn't do this. He instead turned control of his business (The Trump Organization, of which Donald Trump, the current US president, is the sole owner) over to his sons Donald Jr. and Eric, and to Allen Weisselberg (CFO) and Matthew F. Calamari (COO).
However, as Pirro points out, everybody who gets into a governemt office manages to get rich, how can that be? We're talking Democrats too. Whatever Trump is doing is just keeping his businesses operating, which isn't getting rich off bribes or whatever.
Trump is being sued in court for violations of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The suit alleges that he is profiting from foreign nations not just through the patronage of their dignitaries and representatives of his hotels, and he's actively promtoing his hotels to same said dignitaries and representatives.
He is anti-Muslim.
No he is not. This is a typical PC lie. He wants to protect the country from violent jihad.
Yes, Trump is anti Muslim, and no it is not a lie. A travel ban from majority Muslim countries does not protect the country from jihad. Actual jihadists will find a means around the ban, and our intelligence services will still have to detect and monitor their operations.
He is anti-black.
No he is not, he absolutely is not and the blacks who support him know this. This is the same sort of PC character assassination based on some specific incident that has nothing to do with race.
Of course Trump is anti-black. That's why he's for all the confederate monuments. It's why he said the white supremacists in Charlottesville were very fine people. It's why he wouldn't rent his apartments to blacks in New York City. See my
Message 137 for more details about Trump's anti-black racism, the one you never replied to.
He does lie constantly.
I suspect there is a better way of understanding a lot of it.
Really? What about the lie about his inauguration crowd being the largest ever? What about his lie that Obama had Trump Tower bugged? What about his lie that Clinton won the popular vote because of voter fraud? What about his lie that crime is rising? What about his law that the law forced him to separate immigrant families? What about his lie that the Post Office loses money on Amazon? What about his lie that his tax cut was the biggest in American history? What about his lie that his tax cut would cost him a fortune (the opposite is true)? What about his lie that he's signed more legislation than any other administration (he's last among recent presidents, actually)? What about his lie that he would replace Obamacare with something much better? What about his lie that black homeownership is at an all time high (it's been declining since 2004)? What about his lie that he would be promoting infrastructure improvements? What about his lie that there was no collusion, since obviously there was since Giuliani is now arguing that collusion isn't a crime (it is a crime, but it's more a catchall term that isn't used in actual statutes)?
How many lies do you want? Face it, Trump's a liar, and so pathological about it that he has trouble telling the truth when a lie will do.
All this can be substantiated with videos, tweets, texts of executive orders, etc.
Your misinterpretations can't be substantiated, just some raw date you misunderstand, misinterpret, twist or spin.
I can substantiate everything I've said in this post. Challenge anything or everything, whatever you like.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2
(1)