If you really think that Trump is a person of good character, then there isn't much to say. In my professional capacity, have argued with flat-earthers and anti-evolutionists before, too. If you are willing to ignore data, you can believe anything.
nasty pelosi
- Thread starter str8_forward
- Start date
If you really think that Trump is a person of good character, then there isn't much to say. In my professional capacity, have argued with flat-earthers and anti-evolutionists before, too. If you are willing to ignore data, you can believe anything.
theotherwaldo
Well-known member
I still find it amusing that you are preferring a senile finger puppet that fouls up everything that is done in his name and can't be allowed out in public without a minder to a foul-mouthed, egotistical blowhard that got things done for the ordinary people.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
It is also too simple to criticize one politician as "bad" to the exclusion of all the others who are either just as bad if not worse.
I never said that. I simply said that Trump was the worst in some of these categories in my lifetime. But he is not magic - he is just a person. And I certainly criticized several other former presidents in my post.
He wasn't as bad as Nixon, I would say. Nixon tried to have fraudulent evidence planted on opponents, have their taxes audited, etc. More than 70 of his people were convicted after Watergate. Trump, to my knowledge, even with Giuliani in Ukraine, never reached that far. If you are curious, look up 'Nixon's White House Horrors'.
My interpretation is that Trump's character is both what made him a moral hazard, while also rendering him somewhat politically impotent. He clearly drew a lot of unpleasant people out of the woodwork - you never saw white supremacists chanting about Bush II, for example, but they definitely felt Trump was their man. And he gave them tacit support, (carefully worded, of course). The male alt-right, with all the creepiness that connotes, overwhelmingly supported Trump because of his sexual politics.
Because of his vanity and thin skin, however, he was unable to make any real political deals that would have advanced his agenda. He basically had one major piece of legislation pass - the big tax cut for the wealthy. But, for example, he couldn't get Obamacare eliminated, again because he alienated enough Republicans with his personality and character. Other than his judicial appointments, basically everything he did was undone within hours of Biden getting into office. Whatever you think of Bush II, he surrounded himself with experienced professionals was able to negotiate with Democrats and get laws passed.
I don't think that anything I have written suggests I look at things in a black/white way. I have never been a big fan of Bill Clinton, for example - his ethics are clearly problematic. Bush II was a decent man, but one who was weak and easily led down the path to a catastrophic war. Obama was also a decent man who made a few mistakes. But whatever his errors, I strongly support legislation that gives more people health care, both for the practical effect and the moral statement it makes.
But Trump was, for me, and for many, in the overlapping Venn diagram of poor character, soft intellect, and the wrong values. That made him a weak president, but also in the position to represent many things that I think of as morally wrong.
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Gee...sounds like what they tried to do to Trump during the 2016 election, doesn't it?
Example?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Really? "Example"?
The whole Russian collusion debacle is an excellent example.
The whole Russian collusion debacle is an excellent example.
is there evidence that Obama or HRC directed the FBI to link Trump's campaign to the Russians? I have yet to hear even a suggestion of that.
theotherwaldo
Well-known member
We know who you listen to so we know why you haven't heard... .
What?
Ah yes, reasonable deniability. The buck never stopped at Obama...
Just my two cents on the subject. Was Trump the best choice for the GOP? Maybe, maybe not. Was he the best choice to beat out Hillary in 2016? Absolutely. Everyone can moan and complain about Trump's irreverent interpretation of the presidential position but at the end of the day, our country dodged a huge bullet by not allowing Hillary at the helm.
Trying to discuss morality and politics in the same breath is truly a laughable endeavor. Now if we are discussing the appearance of morality, that's a different story. I firmly believe that past administrations just did a better job of covering their tracks, whereas Trump did not feel it necessary to waste the time with the BS. I believe this played a part in losing 2020. He made a strategic error and spent his time campaigning to a group that was already sure votes and neglected the large group of moderates that were on the fence.
My main issue and disappointment with the Trump administration centers on the missed opportunity of the perfect storm. I base my support, not on tax plans, world trade policies, infrastructure policies but on a candidate's stand and action regarding the 2nd. IMO, without the 2nd the rest is just lip service. There should have been a massive push by the Trump administration to create protections and eliminate the infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.
The Republican side has been in compromise mode for many decades. The problem has been that the Right has compromised much more then the Left. I am a firm believe that true Government of, by and for the People has not been the case for an extremely long time. Trump was a step back in the right direction, albeit a rather coarse, unpolished step but a step none the less.
Trying to discuss morality and politics in the same breath is truly a laughable endeavor. Now if we are discussing the appearance of morality, that's a different story. I firmly believe that past administrations just did a better job of covering their tracks, whereas Trump did not feel it necessary to waste the time with the BS. I believe this played a part in losing 2020. He made a strategic error and spent his time campaigning to a group that was already sure votes and neglected the large group of moderates that were on the fence.
My main issue and disappointment with the Trump administration centers on the missed opportunity of the perfect storm. I base my support, not on tax plans, world trade policies, infrastructure policies but on a candidate's stand and action regarding the 2nd. IMO, without the 2nd the rest is just lip service. There should have been a massive push by the Trump administration to create protections and eliminate the infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.
The Republican side has been in compromise mode for many decades. The problem has been that the Right has compromised much more then the Left. I am a firm believe that true Government of, by and for the People has not been the case for an extremely long time. Trump was a step back in the right direction, albeit a rather coarse, unpolished step but a step none the less.
Sure, it is fair to pick a single issue if that what is really matters the most to you. For me, it's the 1st Amendment, although I am a gun rights supporter as well
But Trump didn't really advance gun rights. I never saw any effort to get laws passed. Nor any revocation of previous executive orders. He could have proposed pro-gun legislation that he could negotiated through Congress with his legendary negotiating skills. Alas, nothing. In fact, Obama expanded gun rights far more than Trump, by signing off on concealed carry in National Parks.
Trump talked a big 2A game, but . . .
I agree that the 1st is as important if not more than the 2nd but I maintain that with out the 2nd we will very quickly loose grasp of the 1st and remaining ones.
I agree with you on Trump failing to advance protection of our right to keep and bear arms. That's why I stated as much in my third paragraph.
Just to clarify something. The 2nd does not actually provide the right to keep and bare arms. That is a pre-existing inalienable right. That is a God given right to have the ability and means to protect/defend ones life. The 2nd guarantees and demands protection of that right by our government. It's a very fine point but an important one. It means that the right can not be taken away, it can only be surrendered. The protection against the infringement is what is being removed, bit by bit and bill by bill. It's up to each individual to determine their own actions once they feel that their right is no longer protected by their government. Or at least that is how I see it. Someone may try to convince me otherwise but I seriously doubt that they would be successful.
str8_forward
Well-known member
That is a pre-existing inalienable right. That is a God given right to have the ability and means to protect/defend ones life.
Amen to that!
Amen to that!
wiscoaster
Well-known member
Life and liberty.
theotherwaldo
Well-known member
Yep.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights belong to the people of the United States, not the government.
These documents are the contract that allows the federal government to exist, as long as they follow the contract... .
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights belong to the people of the United States, not the government.
These documents are the contract that allows the federal government to exist, as long as they follow the contract... .
RetiredUSNChief
Member
NO politician advances gun rights, not willingly. It's ALL a power play for them.
str8_forward
Well-known member
Although I do NOT agree with the reasons these freeloaders are protesting for, I am happy they are visiting this truly evil thing.
The chicken are coming home to roost.........
and if we are getting lucky, they are getting inside the mansion and locking her up in the $25,000 refrigerator to cool off. And from there straight to the mortuary in another ice box.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-activists-pelosi-home-eviction-notice
The chicken are coming home to roost.........
and if we are getting lucky, they are getting inside the mansion and locking her up in the $25,000 refrigerator to cool off. And from there straight to the mortuary in another ice box.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-activists-pelosi-home-eviction-notice
theotherwaldo
Well-known member
It looks like Nancy's nephew, Governor Gavin Newsom, may be in a bit of trouble.
Let's see how the recall vote works out, even with the non-secret peek-a-boo mail-in ballots being collected by crack-heads for unknown purposes.
Funny, how O.D.'d crackheads keep being found around Hunter Biden's place... .
Let's see how the recall vote works out, even with the non-secret peek-a-boo mail-in ballots being collected by crack-heads for unknown purposes.
Funny, how O.D.'d crackheads keep being found around Hunter Biden's place... .