Not very clear-eyed of you fellas, which is what I’ve learned to expect. That’s really why I very seldom even read any of your responses.
I am glad you believe in fairness, Bob. As a non-American, I can reasonably claim to be completely impartial observing what is going on across the border. For the life of me, I cannot understand why you seem to be adamantly opposed to Donald Trump. It seems to me that he has kept all the promises he made when running for the presidency. What more do you expect of a politician than that?
I can only presume that you, along with almost 100% of Democrats, simply don’t like the man. But why? Because of his personality, his obvious success, his sense of humor, his family, his “smelly Walmart supporters”? Help me out, Bob. I promise to give serious consideration to the rationale you offer.
Of course he can do wrong. The man who cannot fail in some way or other has not yet been born, the Lord excluded.
1 Like
Norm, I (and others) have repeatedly outlined dozens of actions of Trump I oppose (and directly challenged some things Dave exalts about Trump). It has never prompted any response engaging my arguments. I think the reality is that our differences in political views means things that you may applaud, I may find destructive. E.g. I detailed my opposition to the huge expansion of our national debt, by increasing gov’t spending, while only slashing revenues, and giving most of those breaks to the already most affluent Americans. I’ve also discussed bowing and scraping to thugs like Putin, Kim, Erdogan, Salman, Duarte, and other violent oppressors, while alienating vital democratic allies who have always fought side by side with us, by publicly deeply denigrating their leaders and people.
I’ve also detailed my sense that Trump has openly brought an openly and constant demeaning reality TV style of tweeting and ridiculing those the right hates as he has repeatedly profanely denigrated and ridiculed fellow Republican challengers, members of his cabinet, religious leaders, Democrats, endless women, and virtually anyone who doesn’t show complete deference to him. I realize much of my opposition derives from my conservative nature, but I believe this openly profane style is going to polarize our politics at a new low that will not be healthy for our society.
Most recently, a dozen times I detailed what I concluded from the impeachment hearings, and detailed what troubled me about Trump’s actions. Of our three consistent Trump advocates, Steve acknowledged that what Trump did was plainly “wrong,” but that he shouldn’t be impeached for it. I responded that I respected and share that conclusion. To my knowledge in my continual rationales, neither you nor Dave has seriously engaged any of it. Dave regularly admits he almost never even reads my side. That’s not a posture that is hopeful for respectful consideration of a differing perspective.
What did you hear him promise, or which of these did he keep? That Mexico would build a wall along all of our border (while unable to even convince a GOP congress to approve extending it)? That’d he’d provide better health care for less cost (and end Obamacare, while never even proposing a replacement or something better)? That he’d lower the national debt? That he’d take away the nuclear and missile threat of Iran and North Korea? That we’d leave Afghanistan? That he’d increase admiration for America. That he’d stop tweeting after he was elected? That he’d offer a huge infrastructure improvement plan? That’d he’d restore coal & steel production, stop Chinese currency manipulation, etc?
I almost let you get me started, but I do think while much of Trump’s rhetoric is sincere, you exaggerate when you say he’s accomplished what he said.
I disagree, it simply encourages a less provincial rational look at why person’s supposed ‘reasoning’ differs. I offered reasons why I believed my proposal created less dangers and difficulties. You labeled it a “bad argument,” but if you have compelling “reasons” why they have to be irrational, I welcome them.
Similarly, if you have efficacious reasons for why government is bound to enforce the kind of restrictions on the freedom of transgender people that you find demanded by reason, but I’ve argued against, I’d welcome your reasoning as to why that is necessary.
My gleaning is that you think gov’t must enforce the gender identification that objective inherited physical components would indicate. I sympathize with your inclination that genetic ingredients are the ultimate truth about someone’s proper identification. (A similar argument may be made that homosexuality represents an untrue perversion of the obvious genetic and physical construction of the two genders.)
But many people think that what forms people’s nature or reality is more than genetics alone. As a psych major, the constant perception was that some combination of genetics and external development explains most of what we turn out to be like. And as you know some are convinced that experience confirms that the gender identity that now best fits them is opposite their heredity.
To you and I, that is unconvincing reasoning. Lots of things people deeply find right for them makes little sense to me. But I don’t find it irrational to use reasoning in a free society to ask how much free choice we should reasonably legally permit minority types. My own bias leans to limited gov’t power, so that we should respect other people’s choices where we safely can, even when my own reason is not convinced of theirs.
What seems clear, is that we live in an era where people will do such untraditional things as change their gender, and thus the questions I raised about the pros and cons of restroom usage, enforcing how people dress, etc are unavoidable. And I’m not seeing how it’s abandoning reason to use reason to decide what are the best rules to enforce in a democracy with differing thinking.
It’s been my experience that it goes further than dislike, and began when the American people refused to elect Hillary Clinton. All the hopes of the Left, of continuing Obama’s reign for another 8 years, were shattered. It affected something in the Left’s brain structure, and they have not made any sense since then, and are still frothing at the mouth, inventing crimes, slandering T’s character, making up ‘substantive’ issues that he supposedly has transgressed - it’s a shame. The past 3 years have been hard on the country; but it’s all they have. Impeachment, and a few nutty far-left political hacks that want to be president. Just my humble opinion.
Remember the Pee tapes? Some Democrat ‘leaked’ to the press that Moscow had tape of Trump completely naked, in bed with two or three naked prostitutes, all peeing on him, as that was the only way our twisted and sick, perverted President could get aroused.
Here is a list of sober state department employees, Lefties, Ph.D’s and politicos that complained about such an outrageous lie:
- Hmmmm…
The important thing there is - even though it was a lie, that image sticks in one’s mind. That’s all they had to do - plant an image. I call that a slimy political trick, and to the Dems who did not stand up and call it that I can ask: why not? Is Party THAT important? You can have it.
Calling all witnesses! Calling all witnesses!
I think they should practice their calls! 
And I’m no way suggesting, there’s a relationship between the human witnesses and the swine in this video. But hypothetically, I wouldn’t mind practicing my calls - on the gals in the bikinis (assuming they are legally considered adults). 
If only we could just see the good in the other, glorify only one good quality in the midst of many weaknesses, and stop complaining, criticising, condemning; imagine how the world would be!
~~Bodhi Shuddhaanandaa
Bob, I would find it surprising if any two people agreed on everything - particularly on politics but also on less contentious matters we discuss on this forum such as the date and manner of creation, infallibility of the Bible, eschatology, etc.
I have previously stated that I do not believe Donald Trump is a perfect president. I, too, do not like his propensity to tweet, or his occasional use of terminology that you and I would not use. And you are correct in contending that he has not delivered on all the promises he made three years ago, although many have been fulfilled despite receiving nothing but mindless, rabid opposition from his political opponents. In fact, it is surprising that anything has been achieved.
Yes, the US national debt has increased during his presidency, but its rate of increase has been lower than it was during the second term of his predecessor. Your assertion that only the wealthy have benefitted from tax cuts smacks to me of a degree of envy of those who are better off than you and certainly than me. The fact remains that the rich still pay the highest proportion by far in support of the American economy.
I take exception to your misplaced idea that Trump “bows and scrapes to thugs like Putin, Kim, etc.” Yes, he dialogues with them, even negotiates with them, but that is not the same as deferring to them. Rather, it is what I would expect a politician to do to promote the security and interests of his country. It appears to an outsider like me that the US is enjoying a time of peace and increasing prosperity because of the diplomacy of your President and he has done this in a relatively short time, moreover singlehandedly.
2 Likes
Well, I for one - will vote for Trump next time. Unless one of these three things happen:
-
The Republican-controlled senate, votes for impeachment
-
Or Mike Bloomberg wins the Democratic nomination. Or becomes a viable, third-party candidate.
-
Or the BBC announces, the end of the world. Due to Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) commencing.
Here’s some advise for today:
I think I hear the BBC, announcing the end of the world.
Yes, he quite graciously speaks of how these men who brutalize their citizens love their people and how he has a “love relationship” with such, never challenging them about their dictatorial oppression. You have to admit he doesn’t “dialogue” with loyal allies this way when he publicly ridicules them.
As a fiscal conservative, we appear to disagree on Trump’s policy of expanding gov’t spending while drastically reducing income that pays for it. What is your documenation that the growth of the debt has slowed, compared to Obama’s terms?
The constant shock expressed on this forum that “political opponents” don’t praise and support those they oppose seems disingenuously naïve. That’s what “opponents” classically do!!
But early on with a Democrat president, the GOP signaled that they would not consider any proposal or nominee their opponent presented, since their stated “only goal” was defeating him and seeing that he accomplished nothing. Then Trump signaled early on that he would be rabid toward anyone who presented any challenge when he viciously demeaned genuine conservatives in his primary, mindlessly calling them demeaning names, ridiculing their wives and parents, appearance, etc.
When the one you praise has clearly established a new norm of attacking opponents with mindless denigration, that you are surprised many of his opponents would uncooperatively respond in kind, only seems skewed by your partisan bias.
I looked at the graph below and drew my own conclusions. I suppose it could be misleading and I suppose I could be wrong - for the second time in my life. The graph could also be wrong. Who knows where the truth lies - maybe you know, Bob?
Norm, I’m not seeing where your graph shows any notable decrease in debt growth except under Obama’s Democratic predecessor. I find GOP salutes to balancing the budget to be hypocritic rhetoric never acted upon, except when Reagan raised taxes
.
While I haven’t read Bob’s comment, that Norm is responding to , I get the drift.
Trump has been in only 3 years and the Dems have opposed him every day, loudly and nastily. And then he is held responsible for not YET completing all his promise-keeping? That is simply a wilfully deceptive thing to accuse him of. Can anyone really say that he has not been trying to keep all the promises and has done so to a remarkable extent in current presidential history? “You can keep your doctor…” was not a promise, it was a lie and Obama knew it.
National debt? Is that why Dems tried to impeach from day 1 of the Trump ‘Reign’? No. It was shock about getting beat in the election, and it still is.
$.05
I appreciate your honesty that you refuse to look at what those who differ with your views actually argue. It’s manifest in your response that you avoid engaging what I actually argue.
Norm to his credit has sought to do that.
"Now that some light is finally revealing just how rotten this whole nonsense (impeachment, Russia Mueller ‘Investigation’ )has been from the very beginning, the most maddening aspect of all is the one thing not said nearly enough: every bit of this frame-up job to hang the American president for being a Russian agent and traitor to his nation began as a way to inoculate Hillary Clinton from her largest political vulnerabilities going into the 2016 campaign.
Aside from her questionable health and a lifetime of scandal, Hillary had two sizable liabilities (of her own creation) that threatened her ability to win the general election: (1) her use of the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle for laundering bribes from foreign governments and moneyed interests and (2) her decision to conduct the business of the State Department (as well as to discuss our nation’s most guarded secrets) on an unsecured private email server that had been hacked by known and unknown foreign governments and adverse entities. Peter Schweizer’s Clinton Cash did a remarkable job exposing the Clinton Foundation as a spectacular pay-to-play operation that had allowed Hillary to trade the powers of her office for personal aggrandizement (including the sale of 20% of America’s uranium to Russia for, among other things, $145 million transferred to her foundation). And even though the Obama Justice Department was doing its best to minimize the revelation of Hillary’s gross breach of national security and slow-walk any repercussions, the American people were discovering that life-and-death secrets had been entrusted to a person with such disregard for our well-being that she stored them on a personal server in a downstairs bathroom.
For a normal person with a modicum of ethical concern, sense of shame, or patriotic duty, these crimes would have been more than sufficient to prompt withdrawal from an election for the country’s highest office. This type of honest self-reflection and private admission of guilt is alien to the Clintons, though, so what would have represented immovable obstacles to anyone else became just another set of political variables that had to be neutralized in her favor."
You must have missed my numerous posts where i acknowledge misconduct by Trump and behavior that sometimes offends me , but nothing close to impeachable and additionally i think he is doing a bang up job re results. I’m not looking to a President to be an inspirational leader i just wants results with the things i’m concerned about.
1 Like