Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.)

So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The Tea Party did the opposite of getting themselves elected nationally for two cycles, and then when they had the chance to be the deciding factor, they got showed-up by a frog cartoon.
I think 2010 may have been different without them. While they did cost the GOP a few seats, they more than made up for that in turn out elsewhere. 2014 is arguable because I would be inclined to argue lack of turnout was the factor more than mobilization.

As for the tea party failing on the national stage, their favored son, Ted Cruz came up second. Still noteworthy.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
There has to be something. I say those denying this are being disingenuous.
Probably but there's no incentive to do so. What happens when they bring up one thing? Will they be jumped on with "Aha! I told you he was terrible " or "Guess you shouldn't have voted for him?" or some other unproductive nonsense.

Look, I'm trying to do the same thing from another angle - find any common ground on certain legislation, etc. but it still suffers from the same deal. I'm looking for a shred of commonality but I think for some it's not worth the effort.

For better or worse this forum has become a constant assault on Trump and given we have two or three total active posters here who actually voted for him, I can understand not wanting to have to constantly defend him or their vote.

That said I'm not discouraging you from trying. I'm still trying.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
ll while the unvetted stream through the open borders. I wonder if the Judges will be held responsible for any violence against US citizens? Responsiblity? Bwa-haa-haa.
Hey BadKosh, still waiting for this. It should be easy for you.

Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Here's a fun test - tell me about Trump's character. Tell me about his honesty and the frequency with which he makes objectively false statements (aka lies). This will be easy for you to do because you're not a liberal so you are a good judge of character.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 03:27 PM
 
Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I'm going to wait for the SCOTUS decision.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The Christian waiver? Preference given to Christian refugees? No?

Effectively, Christians in muslim countries are a minority, and will be prioritized.
Do you see how that journalist is manipulating the statement, instead of simply relaying facts?

Jan. 27: In an interview for the Christian Broadcasting Network, David Brody asks Trump: “The refugee changes you’re looking to make—as it relates to persecuted Christians, do you see them as kind of a priority?” Trump says yes. “If you were a Christian in Syria, it was impossible, at least very tough, to get into the United States,” he says. “If you were a Muslim, you could come in. But if you were a Christian, it was almost impossible.” This characterization is grossly misleading. But Trump concludes that the process “was very, very unfair” to Christians. “So we are going to help them.”

Later that day, Trump issues his order. It suspends “entry into the United States of aliens” from countries in which “a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence.” In practice, this means seven Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The order doesn’t mention Christians, but it commits the United States to “prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
The Christian waiver? Preference given to Christian refugees? No?





Effectively, Christians in muslim countries are a minority, and will be prioritized.
You do realize the prioritizing will occur once the new vetting process is in place? As I pointed out, the Bishop of Erbil had to postpone his visit due to the XO.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 05:00 PM
 
Real quick - did we all already agree that the old vetting process wasn't working? Were there a lot of terrorists getting into the country?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Real quick - did we all already agree that the old vetting process wasn't working? Were there a lot of terrorists getting into the country?
That's what kills me, there is no evidence to this effect, not even from the Koch Brothers funded CATO institute. Yet, Trump is going on about this as if this is some sort of emergency and that "bad things could happen" if this ban is overturned. And, of course, people like BadKosh have bought into this because it came from Trump so this is now a thing and the goalposts have been shifted to be about the legal stuff such that few right wingers seem to even question whether there is an actual need and benefit from making this change.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2017, 09:22 PM
 
They don't really seem to care what he does or doesn't do, its more about whether anyone tries to stop him from doing anything he wants to do. That makes them furious but raping the environment, being obviously corrupt and potentially violating the constitution are all absolute non issues.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 12:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
That's what kills me, there is no evidence to this effect, not even from the Koch Brothers funded CATO institute. Yet, Trump is going on about this as if this is some sort of emergency and that "bad things could happen" if this ban is overturned.
It makes much more sense to think of this ban as a form of Trump PR rather than a policy decision: It has received tons of publicity, on the surface Trump has fulfilled a campaign promise, a “muslim ban” and a ban on refugees. Even if it is stopped, he can blame anyone under the sky for it failing including the opposition (aka media) and judges which meddle in governmental affairs. His core supporters will be happy. And since most Republicans in Congress haven't opposed him here, he showed them who is boss. (Of course, there were exceptions, and I would be remiss not to mention that. But the majority was tepid.) I don't think Trump cares that it doesn't do anything to “make America safe again” or that it was obviously ill-conceived and amateurishly executed.

Arguing against the order on the grounds that it doesn't accomplish what it says on the tin, and is based on false premises, but I think that hardly matters because its purpose was different to begin with.

And in my mind this is part of a larger pattern of mostly symbolic executive orders, which are statements of intent that are empty without additional work from Congress (e. g. in the form of laws that authorize a budget). Trump wants to show “how easy it is to solve the nations problems”, that he — unlike other politicians — can “keep his promises”.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 01:22 AM
 
Sorry for the lengthy delay. I've been away from the forums for a while.

Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Isn't that view a least a little bit attributable to your bubble?
Certainly. I think most of us are impacted by our bubble more than we'd like to admit. About 60-70% of my weekly interactions are with people from my church, and those aged 40 and above in our congregation definitely fall within the conservative, echo-chamber bubble.

However, the students that I work with (even in a conservative Christian church environment) are far more moderate than their parents. Most of them were at the very least Bernie-curious. My friends (usually aged between 28-40) aren't quite as progressive as my students, but about half of them are opposed to Trump's immigration ban, repealing Obamacare, etc.

Of course most of the views you're exposed to are not in support of the protesters. But do you really believe that out of 324,000,000 Americans, 317,000,000 believe the protesters to be idiots?
No, of course not. The 50-to-1 number wasn't meant to be taken literally.

You made a point of calling out protesters screaming or banging congo drums. Do you believe that those two qualities accurately represent the majority of the protesters? What about the well-spoken, well-intentioned, very reasonable marchers that have very well-founded concerns about what this election and the presidency so far means for human rights, equality, and respect for the dignity of all people?

The way you phrased that statement makes it seem like you're discounting the valid concerns of the protesters and are trying to focus on a minority of easy targets, taking advantage of a negative stereotype.
I have absolutely no problem with protests. I do have a problem when many, if not most, of similar protests seem to have a small number of people who completely lose control, throw chairs through windows, etc. It's the product of them being worked into a hopeless frenzy.

As for the sensible protesters: of course they have a right (and even moral responsibility) to advocate their point of view. However, it seems that many have forgotten that the election is over. These protests are largely anti-Trump instead of anti-policy. At least that's what it seems like from the outside.

Given your pro-life stance, it's understandable why you'd feel less than supportive of the protesters and marchers as abortion was a very hot topic, but do you at least recognize that more than one issue is at play?

Take yourself back to 1963. Would you look at the marchers and protesters and say, "What are those idiots doing now?"
That's actually my intended point.

Watching documentaries and reading books about the civil rights movement, there was really only one way to respond if you were a decent human being looking in from the outside, because all you saw were multitudes of peaceful, gentle African-Americans marching the streets without ever lifting a finger in retaliation. They weren't destroying property. They weren't even defending themselves in many cases. They stood for what they believed in, but their approach was just as admirable (and ultimately effective) as their message.



...contrasted with...

(YouTube link - Anti-Trump Protesters)

I ask you these questions not to pick on you, but because you're literally the only conservative voice left here that I feel is capable of having a real, honest conversation without regressing into catchphrases, name-calling, and personal attacks. That's why I was so surprised to see you discount the protesters and refer (at least in a roundabout way) to them as "idiots."
I don't mind you asking tough questions. Not one bit.

But to clarify, I don't think they're idiots. I do think they're often obnoxious. Finally, I think that their current approach is counter-productive. Until they can dissociate from the trouble-makers who show up to rallies in bataclavas, clearly planning on doing damage, their protests are just further entrenching people who voted for Trump.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
We like Jawbone.
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Jawbone is cool.
Oh, stop it.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I gave this some thought. Would you say you're suffering from voter apathy? That you're tired of politics?
100%.

I've been experiencing political burnout for at least a decade, and it gets worse every year, partly because I've watched it put people at each other's throats over nothing in the church where I work, especially during the 2016 campaign.

I won't go into too much detail, but I had a bit of backlash last year when I preached to our main congregation and said something to the effect of, "Would Jesus be more concerned with deporting illegals, or saving them? Does your Facebook wall reflect that?" It didn't go over too well with the 40-60 age group.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 02:59 AM
 
@Jawbone
Thanks for the reply.
Just a comment regarding the video you posted: the protestors you see are actually anarchists, not anti-Trump protestors. You can tell not just by the black clothes (meaning they belong to the violent black block), but white encircled A on the banner at 0:13 and the black and red anarchist flag at e. g. 1:31. They also protested violently at Obama's inauguration in 2013 and at previous inaugurations. In Germany they regularly riot on May 1st. Their opposition to Trump is rooted in their opposition to government, so I don't think it is makes sense to lump them into the same category as all the other millions of protestors who were peaceful.

By the way, you are not the only one, I have noticed that a few media outlets have selected footage like the one you posted and presented it as “anti-Trump” protests. While ordinary people need not necessarily pick up on all these nuances, people in the news business should. Anarchists are not a new phenomenon, and I think it is disingenuous to portray them as connected to the hundreds of thousands who came to the women's marches or anti-Trump protests.
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Feb 7, 2017 at 04:49 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 05:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Were there a lot of terrorists getting into the country?
We don't know how many, it could very well mean that few have been activated.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 06:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
I have absolutely no problem with protests. I do have a problem when many, if not most, of similar protests seem to have a small number of people who completely lose control, throw chairs through windows, etc. It's the product of them being worked into a hopeless frenzy.
Rather than cheer the "small number" of rioters on, the vast majority at the protest should have descended upon the "bad" ones and let them know their violence wasn't appreciated, because it only made them all look like they were part of a riot. Also I don't believe it's hoplessness, many just enjoy the chaos and

As for the sensible protesters: of course they have a right (and even moral responsibility) to advocate their point of view. However, it seems that many have forgotten that the election is over. These protests are largely anti-Trump instead of anti-policy. At least that's what it seems like from the outside.
It appears they believe that if they scream and cry loud enough Trump will simply disappear, and that's not how it works, obviously. My 4 y/o doesn't even do that, at least not frequently, which relays how out of touch with reality some of these folks are.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 06:24 AM
 
A point by JuRY in regards to recent protest movements.

Tea Party
Occupy
BLM
The Women's march

Only one was paired with "U mad bro? Guess what? We're running for office."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It makes much more sense to think of this ban as a form of Trump PR rather than a policy decision: It has received tons of publicity, on the surface Trump has fulfilled a campaign promise, a “muslim ban” and a ban on refugees. Even if it is stopped, he can blame anyone under the sky for it failing including the opposition (aka media) and judges which meddle in governmental affairs. His core supporters will be happy. And since most Republicans in Congress haven't opposed him here, he showed them who is boss. (Of course, there were exceptions, and I would be remiss not to mention that. But the majority was tepid.) I don't think Trump cares that it doesn't do anything to “make America safe again” or that it was obviously ill-conceived and amateurishly executed.

Arguing against the order on the grounds that it doesn't accomplish what it says on the tin, and is based on false premises, but I think that hardly matters because its purpose was different to begin with.

And in my mind this is part of a larger pattern of mostly symbolic executive orders, which are statements of intent that are empty without additional work from Congress (e. g. in the form of laws that authorize a budget). Trump wants to show “how easy it is to solve the nations problems”, that he — unlike other politicians — can “keep his promises”.


Makes sense to me, thanks for this analysis.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 04:34 PM
 
Any concern over Trump using an Android phone?

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/trump-...curity-threat/

I think I will just keep appending to this thread until some concern in some form (competency, associations, diplomacy, judgment, personal character, SOMETHING) is acknowledged.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 04:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Hey BadKosh, still waiting for this. It should be easy for you.
Trump is erratic. he is still deciding what his EXACT policies will end up being, altered by the courts and (YECCHH) congress. I think he's still better than horrid Hillary. So far he gets a C-. The protesting liberal stooges throwing tantrums and the emotional BS surrionding all they say and do -F.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Any concern over Trump using an Android phone?

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/trump-...curity-threat/

I think I will just keep appending to this thread until some concern in some form (competency, associations, diplomacy, judgment, personal character, SOMETHING) is acknowledged.
Is he getting POTUS email, or just tweeting? If he is getting email, he needs to get one of Hillary's lackeys to take a hammer to it.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 05:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
We don't know how many, it could very well mean that few have been activated.
Sounds like a great reason to insult 7 countries with no recent history of killing US citizens and trashing your reputation on the international stage even more than you already did.

How many terrorists do you actively create with this move? I bet its that same "we don't know how many" number.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 06:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Trump is erratic. he is still deciding what his EXACT policies will end up being, altered by the courts and (YECCHH) congress. I think he's still better than horrid Hillary. So far he gets a C-. The protesting liberal stooges throwing tantrums and the emotional BS surrionding all they say and do -F.
Have you been spending too much time on the Drinking Thread? This reads as though is was written in german and run through Google Translate.

That being said, kudos for being the first conservative to actually express some concerns/disappointments with Trump. I'm not kidding.

I can just about guarantee has a few counties in the mid-west gone the other way, there would be a few regressive snowflakes posting the same sentiment- she's not great but at least she's better than Trump.

See, we're not so different after all!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:06 PM
 
Yeah BadKosh, I echo Paco500. Thank you for being candid.

My main concern and reason for this thread is that I'm concerned with Trump's competency. Hillary may be horrid, but she's been around enough to know not to say stupid stuff to Australia, for example. I'm sure you'll disagree with this, but I just wanted you to understand where I'm coming from. If Trump was competent and I just disagreed with everything, that would be one thing (he'd be Bush-like) and perhaps you would perceive less consternation among people like myself.

I just hope for the sake of the country that he is up to the job, and again, by calling him "erratic" I'm happy that even though we disagree about pretty much everything that you share some of this same sort of concern. After all, erratic is certainly not an ideal quality for a president.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If Trump was competent and I just disagreed with everything, that would be one thing (he'd be Bush-like) and perhaps you would perceive less consternation among people like myself.
Who would have thought we'd all be nostalgic for the Bush years?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Real quick - did we all already agree that the old vetting process wasn't working? Were there a lot of terrorists getting into the country?
Quoting this because this point has been left far, far behind. Having concerns the refugee and immigrant process aren't stringent is valid. Any signs pointing to it being so, let alone evidence, has been noticeable absent.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
100%.

I've been experiencing political burnout for at least a decade, and it gets worse every year, partly because I've watched it put people at each other's throats over nothing in the church where I work, especially during the 2016 campaign.
It shows. Which is to say, your answers came off as someone who might have legitimate concerns, but is long past the point of caring.

And yes, it is getting worse. I lack the knowledge to know how this kind of partisanship ends/gets broken.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
I won't go into too much detail, but I had a bit of backlash last year when I preached to our main congregation and said something to the effect of, "Would Jesus be more concerned with deporting illegals, or saving them? Does your Facebook wall reflect that?" It didn't go over too well with the 40-60 age group.
Yeah, obviously they don't believe in your version of Christianity. They probably worship supply-side jesus.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:16 PM
 
Actually I take that back. Bush was incompetent too, but Trump just seems at a whole other level of incompetency, like completely out of his league as opposed to just bad at his job and ineffective.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Actually I take that back. Bush was incompetent too, but Trump just seems at a whole other level of incompetency, like completely out of his league as opposed to just bad at his job and ineffective.
Upon reflection, I'm not sure Bush was as incompetent as I thought at the time.

Either way, Bush surrounded himself and seemed to take the council of competent (albeit disagreeable) people. Trump, clearly, has not.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 07:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Upon reflection, I'm not sure Bush was as incompetent as I thought at the time.

Either way, Bush surrounded himself and seemed to take the council of competent (albeit disagreeable) people. Trump, clearly, has not.
While my opinion on Bush 2 has mellowed somewhat as well, we should be quite careful: if we grade Bush 2 on the Tump scale, of course he will end up ahead and seem like a very sensible person. On the other hand I still think my core criticisms have held up, Iraq did end up not possessing WMD, its invasion has become the giving tree of bad news and after effects, and he let the NSA's powers explode.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
I can just about guarantee has a few counties in the mid-west gone the other way, there would be a few regressive snowflakes posting the same sentiment- she's not great but at least she's better than Trump.

See, we're not so different after all!
Except the snowflakes would be right.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2017, 10:29 PM
 
Its pretty clear that he is grossly incompetent, does no-one have substantial concerns about corruption? He seems to be swapping favours and making donations and allowing more of the same to go on among his co-scumbags than ever has happened in the past. Then there are interests going undeclared if not being actively concealed, there are some that are even known about like with the pipeline jobs.

I heard 22 of the senators who approved DeVos had accepted money from her family, not including her PAC. In any respectable system, anyone who had taken cash from her would be barred from voting and she would have been easily thrown out.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 07:29 AM
 
Trump being erratic might be a plus. Especially since our enemies would think twice before starting some shit. I hope his advisors work out.

Does anyone care to tell us when the whining snowflakes will get on with their meaningless lives and STFU?
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 08:59 AM
 
When the republicans stop being blowhards? If the left STFU, there will be no pushback, and Trump et al would think they had a mandate to do everything from sell the national parks to blow up the moon. I am of course being hyperbolic. Or am I?

Trump being erratic I think is actually putting the world on alert; giving ammunition to our enemies. Even our allies are looking askance.

Badkosh, it would be great if you could have a discussion without throwing insults around. It makes me not want to take you seriously. I am actually interested in hearing some of your side, but not when you're just regurgitating insults.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 10:54 AM
 
Being that I live near DC, and work in that horrid crap hole, perhaps I am somewhat bitter. Add in I'm 62, so get off my grass! LOL!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Being that I live near DC, and work in that horrid crap hole, perhaps I am somewhat bitter. Add in I'm 62, so get off my grass! LOL!
Your old enough to be the grandfather of some members. you've lived through the history they didn't learn about in school!
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
However, it seems that many have forgotten that the election is over. These protests are largely anti-Trump instead of anti-policy. At least that's what it seems like from the outside.
Protesting a bad government official shouldn't be contingent on how close we are to the election. A bad official is a bad official. It's not like they're asking for a recount - they're saying he's a bad person, and they have a lot of evidence to back up that stance.

My facebook feed had plenty of "Welp the election's over time to stop whining and work together for America," which is something only ever said by people on the winning side who have no perspective or self-awareness.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 12:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Trump is erratic. he is still deciding what his EXACT policies will end up being, altered by the courts and (YECCHH) congress. I think he's still better than horrid Hillary. So far he gets a C-. The protesting liberal stooges throwing tantrums and the emotional BS surrionding all they say and do -F.
You've talked about his actions so far, but that's not what I asked. Tell me about his character and tell me about your feelings on the frequency with which he makes objectively demonstrably false statements (lies).
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 12:54 PM
 
My buddies in High school had a father mixed up in Watergate! Look up John Caufield.
We watched the Watergate hearings every day.
I remember the Cuban missile crisis!
Sputnik.
I remember Kennedy being shot (Both).
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
You've talked about his actions so far, but that's not what I asked. Tell me about his character and tell me about your feelings on the frequency with which he makes objectively demonstrably false statements (lies).
Obama LIED CONTINUOUSLY! The left seems to have overlooked that. His appointees were all incompetent.
never had the left discuss Obamas character, or maybe they realized his was a POS already.
I think Trump has more character than Obama. Give me more time to watch Trump before I give you something more.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Obama LIED CONTINUOUSLY! The left seems to have overlooked that. His appointees were all incompetent.
never had the left discuss Obamas character, or maybe they realized his was a POS already.
I think Trump has more character than Obama. Give me more time to watch Trump before I give you something more.
Why does a question about Trump's character immediately invoke a comparison to Obama? I didn't bring up Obama. I simply asked you, a good judge of character, about Trump's character.

You still haven't said anything about the frequency with with Trump says demonstrably, measurably false statements (lies).
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 02:51 PM
 
Why wasn't this ever brought up during Obamas terms in office in the PWL?? Double standard?
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 04:17 PM
 
IIRC, it was brought up all the time, by you certainly.

But this thread is about Trump. Do you think he's lied? Do you think he encourages his people (cough, kellyann Bowling Green) to also lie?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 04:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Why wasn't this ever brought up during Obamas terms in office in the PWL?? Double standard?
You've been watching too many Kelly Ann Conway interviews, only you aren't paid to be Trump's deflecting lap dog. Why does it take so much effort for you to answer simple, direct questions without deflection?
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 04:49 PM
 
BadKosh, this for example seems an obvious answer of a pretty verifiable lie. Misrepresenting the truth in order to discredit the opposition, misrepresenting the truth in order to get pity, ignoring history... all for something he DIDN'T EVEN NEED TO DRAW ATTENTION TO. Why lie about this? Obama had cabinet appointees who waited longer to be approved. I'm sure plenty of other presidents also waited. But poor widdle Donald didn't get his way day one, wah wah wah.

It is a disgrace that my full Cabinet is still not in place, the longest such delay in the history of our country. Obstruction by Democrats!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
Trump complains that cabinet confirmation process is 'longest' in history
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 08:03 PM
 
In terms of a newly elected president, he's waited longer than anyone else.

Rather than an example of an easily confirmable lie, this is an example of the media twisting the intent behind Trump's statement to make it appear he's a liar, or worse, not giving a shit about his actual intent.

He's not bad enough on his own? We have to make stuff up?

I have a feeling I'm going to be asking those questions a lot over the next four years.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 08:47 PM
 
What makes you say he has waited longer than anyone else, subego?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 08:52 PM
 
The article has a link to a 538 graph of the longest times cabinet members have waited to be confirmed.

Devos took 70-some days. I wikied the five who took longer. None of them were initial appointments from the Presidents in question.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...ent-president/
( Last edited by subego; Feb 8, 2017 at 09:03 PM. )
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 09:04 PM
 
I can almost see how it would matter... might be tougher for a first-termer. However, republicans delayed the process of government for obama's candidates for a long time, can't say there was lots of work being done while that process was on hold. Out of that list of 51 dating from 1977, 17 were Obama nominees.

It's being a bit nitpicky. Saying we're making stuff up is untrue. It's his words. Trump's tweet didn't say "the first term president who's waited longest." He said longest, period. Do you imply that his use of "such" refers to his first-term status? Anybody else would think it refers to the previous sentence which only references his full cabinet not being in place. If he chooses to communicate in sound bites on twitter, he risks being unclear. Us guessing, Spicer elaborating, or KellyAnn revising what he meant, is meaningless. Words matter.

I saw the tweet and googled to see if anybody else waited longer, that was the first hit.
( Last edited by andi*pandi; Feb 8, 2017 at 10:06 PM. )
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I simply asked you, a good judge of character, about Trump's character.
What on Earth makes you think he's a good judge of character?

I could tell you Trump was a vile human being after a single glance at him. When I was 8.
Anyone who can't tell by this point that Trump is a total C * * t likely has some pretty severe emotional development problems themselves.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2017, 10:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
I can almost see how it would matter... might be tougher for a first-termer. However, republicans delayed the process of government for obama's candidates for a long time, can't say there was lots of work being done while that process was on hold. Out of that list of 51 dating from 1977, 17 were Obama nominees.

It's being a bit nitpicky. Saying we're making stuff up is untrue. It's his words. Trump's tweet didn't say "the first term president who's waited longest." He said longest, period. Do you imply that his use of "such" refers to his first-term status? Anybody else would think it refers to the previous sentence which only references his full cabinet not being in place. If he chooses to communicate in sound bites on twitter, he risks being unclear. Us guessing, Spicer elaborating, or KellyAnn revising what he meant, is meaningless. Words matter.

I saw the tweet and googled to see if anybody else waited longer, that was the first hit.
What's being made up is this shows he's a liar.

He may have been imprecise. He may have been describing how it feels to him. He may have misheard one of his sycophants. One of his sycophants may have lied to him. One of his sycophants may be ignorant. Trump may be ignorant.

All of these things suck, but they're not him lying.
     
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2017, 12:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's being made up is this shows he's a liar.
I don't want to get into the weeds of arguing semantics, but I think it's worse, I'd say it's more accurate to claim Trump doesn't care about the truth. If I lie to someone, I don't want to get caught. If I want to tell the truth, I need to make sure what I say is rooted in fact.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2017, 05:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
IIRC, it was brought up all the time, by you certainly.
Just as you did w/ Bush.

What's direct lying is, "if you like your plan you can keep it", and that was about something that actually mattered to everyone.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2