State of the Union

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Lil devils x:

I would like you to be more specific in what you think that is on that list that Trump is responsible for and that it is a good thing. We can break the list down into good bad and neutral and to whether or not Trump actually was responsible for the event that occurred as he as a bad habit of claiming responsibility for things that would have happened regardless of him even being born. Let's not be vague here and make generalizations, breaking things down into specifics is the only way you can actually address the information for what it is.

As for Bernie, first of all did you listen to what he stated in the video linked above? What do you think about what he actually said there?

Second, Being a " career" politician is not a bad thing as long as your actions were good. We want long serving GOOD politicians, not bad ones. Bernie Sander's record is unmatched in congress. Look at what he has actually done and been trying to do with his life. That is what we judge people on. The thing is many DO remember and fully understand how these things work rather than make assumptions or draw conclusions with partial or omitted data. Bernie is not proposing anything that is not leady being done in other successful nations and when discussing these issues with my European friends, they do not even see him as Liberal as his positions are considered standard there. Yes, people do understand these policies, how they work and the long term effects because this is not some " hippy fantasy", but instead tried and true methods that have proven increase the health, quality of life and happiness of the people long term. It is ignorance of how these things actually work in other nations and fearmongering and isolationism promoted by the 1% that has resulted in people not being aware of what is actually going on here causing division. There is no reason we cannot actually hold our officials criminally and financially responsible for their actions and take care of the corruption issue. Of course there is turbulence, why would anyone expect the plutocrats to give up their power without throwing a fit? We have to pull their talons out of the government control kicking and screaming, but get them out none the less. What is the alternative? Let things get worse and have many more lost generations left to be in despair without hope of savings, owning a home or retiring? That is the current situation the wealthy have left us with to deal with as we speak. Currently we have many approachign retirement age with nothing to show for all their hard work. We have people who will not live to retirement because they have used all their savings just to survive the years leading up to it. We have people working multiple jopbs with no hope of ever owning a home. If we continue to do nothing to resolve this, " turbulance" isn't going to be the concern anymore, it will be to be horrific.

Hmmm...my first thought might be if such a request would ever be made if it involved anyone other than Trump. Even if I had the time to get into such a debate, it would be an exercise in futility in any case based on preconceived notions and an overarching unwillingness to view Trump as anything but pure evil and incompetence. Anyways, it is nearly impossible to measure the exact extent of his involvement let alone verify completely accurate reporting on the vast number of actions that have taken place during the first 20 months of his tenure alone, but chances are few would have happened as noted without him at least having a deliberate hand in them. The main point is that they have simply occurred, and quite often appear to align with points he campaigned on. Some are obviously happenstance, but that's to be expected regardless of who's in office. The key takeaway is most of the points could rationally be considered net positives to an American citizen concerned with the following -

I've already stated my opinion on Sanders, and for all his contentions I'd truly like to see him do better than the above. Really, that would be a great miracle, because everything he criticized could also be leveled at all of Trump's predecessors, in some cases even moreso. I'll readily admit that corruption and greed has infected far too many vital facets of American society, but it remains to be seen how much can be remedied without indirectly destroying what we already have.

trunkage:
It had never done that. Never had the US media been close to unbiased. And the bias had been way worse in the past

Ahhh, the myth of "unbiased" media....

You'll have to forgive me if i don't bother responding, that I have some straw in my eye from that object you were just beating on. I'll let you get back to it.

hanselthecaretaker:

Lil devils x:

I would like you to be more specific in what you think that is on that list that Trump is responsible for and that it is a good thing. We can break the list down into good bad and neutral and to whether or not Trump actually was responsible for the event that occurred as he as a bad habit of claiming responsibility for things that would have happened regardless of him even being born. Let's not be vague here and make generalizations, breaking things down into specifics is the only way you can actually address the information for what it is.

As for Bernie, first of all did you listen to what he stated in the video linked above? What do you think about what he actually said there?

Second, Being a " career" politician is not a bad thing as long as your actions were good. We want long serving GOOD politicians, not bad ones. Bernie Sander's record is unmatched in congress. Look at what he has actually done and been trying to do with his life. That is what we judge people on. The thing is many DO remember and fully understand how these things work rather than make assumptions or draw conclusions with partial or omitted data. Bernie is not proposing anything that is not leady being done in other successful nations and when discussing these issues with my European friends, they do not even see him as Liberal as his positions are considered standard there. Yes, people do understand these policies, how they work and the long term effects because this is not some " hippy fantasy", but instead tried and true methods that have proven increase the health, quality of life and happiness of the people long term. It is ignorance of how these things actually work in other nations and fearmongering and isolationism promoted by the 1% that has resulted in people not being aware of what is actually going on here causing division. There is no reason we cannot actually hold our officials criminally and financially responsible for their actions and take care of the corruption issue. Of course there is turbulence, why would anyone expect the plutocrats to give up their power without throwing a fit? We have to pull their talons out of the government control kicking and screaming, but get them out none the less. What is the alternative? Let things get worse and have many more lost generations left to be in despair without hope of savings, owning a home or retiring? That is the current situation the wealthy have left us with to deal with as we speak. Currently we have many approachign retirement age with nothing to show for all their hard work. We have people who will not live to retirement because they have used all their savings just to survive the years leading up to it. We have people working multiple jopbs with no hope of ever owning a home. If we continue to do nothing to resolve this, " turbulance" isn't going to be the concern anymore, it will be to be horrific.

Hmmm...my first thought might be if such a request would ever be made if it involved anyone other than Trump. Even if I had the time to get into such a debate, it would be an exercise in futility in any case based on preconceived notions and an overarching unwillingness to view Trump as anything but pure evil and incompetence. Anyways, it is nearly impossible to measure the exact extent of his involvement let alone verify completely accurate reporting on the vast number of actions that have taken place during the first 20 months of his tenure alone, but chances are few would have happened as noted without him at least having a deliberate hand in them. The main point is that they have simply occurred, and quite often appear to align with points he campaigned on. Some are obviously happenstance, but that?s to be expected regardless of who?s in office. The key takeaway is most of the points could rationally be considered net positives to an American citizen concerned with the following -

I?ve already stated my opinion on Sanders, and for all his contentions I?d truly like to see him do better than the above. Really, that would be a great miracle, because everything he criticized could also be leveled at all of Trump?s predecessors, in some cases even moreso. I?ll readily admit that corruption and greed has infected far too many vital facets of American society, but it remains to be seen how much can be remedied without indirectly destroying what we already have.

First, I asked for specifics that Trump actually had control over, not just "things that happened while he was president" so you specifically list things that happened and not things he actually had control over.

Other Presidents did not attempt to claim everything and anything that they had nothing to do with as something they did. That is the only reason you have to specify what he is and is not responsible for specifically since attempting to credit Trump for what would have happened regardless of who was president is disingenuous. You will be able to gauge more of what impact Trump has had once the impact of his tariffs are felt since that is something he actually did here. It would be like Blaming Obama for the impact for the financial collapse that happened under Bush, or blaming Bush for 9/11 when it was actions take by Bill Clinton, Jimmy carter and Reagan that are what led to 9/11. You have to actually look at the cause and effect and not just claim " this happened while he was president so he is responsible" as that is ignorant and false. You can thank Obama and congress for their efforts to put the economy on track prior to trump, he just benefitted from what was already set to happen when he came into office.

The Economy was already on track to recover from the recession under Obama, and Obama did actually have something to do with that due to him not only sacrificing his own agenda to focus on propping up the economy, he implemented specific plans that focused on helping people in financial distress due to unemployment and facing foreclosures. Trump is not continuing the programs that actually helped mitigate the damage from the recession and assisted with the rebound, in addition he removed the failsafe's that were supposed to help prevent another collapse. This impact will be felt later, not immediate. Businesses have already stated they could weather short term tariffs, but if they continue longer it could be devastating to many US businesses. Most of the benefits and damage from trumps actions will not be felt for a few years and that is when you will be able to gauge his success, currently you are still gauging Obama's success and helping the economy rebound. However, as has been noted repeatedly, the president, Obama or Trump have little actual control over how well or how bad the economy does, they can only control the actions they take and hope for the best.

You give Credit to and hold accountable for things that actually do, not " things that happen". Obama is accountable for his $80 million backroom deal with Pharma, his "terror Tuesdays" and allowing US troops to invade allied nations he is given Credit for his push to expand unemployment benefits and programs available, his mortgage assistance programs for needy families helping them keep their homes, his economic stimulus package that pulled the US out of recession, and expanded access to healthcare to millions. We can only give Presidents Credit or blame for what they actually do, not just whatever random BS that happens. When you list Trumps accomplishments, please do the same. Trump benefited from Obama's stimulus plan and programs, that does not mean Trump is responsible for it.

Has Trump actually given anyone any reason to see him as anything but incompetent yet? Almost every person who leaves his administration, and there have been many, have stated he is ignorant and incompetent. Those are " the best people" according to Trump and people who helped put him in the White house telling us this, not just people who didn't like Trump. It is the people who know him best and have worked closest with him that say this. Can you name another President that had this problem?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Trump_administration_dismissals_and_resignations

Can you explain why the poeople closest to him and supprted him are the ones telling us how incompetent and screwed up he is? Why do you think this is happening to him and not to other Presidents? You want to write of criticisms of trump as" people make up their mind and not give him a chance" when in reality it is his actions that are causing this, nothing else. When you have so many who have dealt with trump telling us this, why should we not believe them? He has left a trail of fraud, mismanagement and lies. Do you believe all of these people are lying?

Just a few.. there are so many more people telling us this however:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-white-house-aide-cliff-sims-sues-trump-after-attack-over-tell-all-book/2019/02/11/2514c286-2e55-11e9-86ab-5d02109aeb01_story.html?utm_term=.b57a39923876
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-nixon-incompetent-dishonest-dean-772068
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/john-kelly-accidentally-told-the-truth-about-trump.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/tony-schwartz-art-of-the-deal-trump-author-us-emergency-book-a8450141.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_University

DO you think any of this would be happening if the GOP had elected John Kasich or Jeb Bush? It is not a conservative vs Liberal issue, it is Trump is a con artist, a scam, and only cares about what he can get away with here, not actually improving anything for the people. What Trump campaigned on is irrelevant especially considering he is he only candidate in memory who had claimed like all stances on numerous issues depending on who he was talking to at the time, so regardless of what actually happened he could claim he supported it and it was a campaign promise filled.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/full-list-donald-trump-s-rapidly-changing-policy-positions-n547801

Bernie Sander's plans have already shown to do better than our current state when implemented in other nations, that is why those nations have the healthiest, best educated, highest quality of life, and happiest people in the world, and the US does not. What do you think would be "destroyed" by providing those things? Some things do actually need to be destroyed, like the ability for people like Trump to avoid jail when they steal from people by not paying their bills and quite literally building himself gold and diamond crusted doors with the money they owed others. The fact that he actually did that should have been warning enough of what type of person he is.

How can someone who stole from these people to buy himself diamond and gold encrusted doors not be in jail?
Do you think these people are lying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnbv95S6BFo
https://justrichest.com/we-take-you-through-a-tour-of-donald-trumps-luxurious-private-homes/
Should someone who does these things be allowed to be president?

Lil devils x:

?

Here's a few comments on the economy from NPR and CNN, which are both typically left leaning. The latter still couldn't help itself by veering off into other negative topics. Here's another typically liberal media outlet asserting the same notion of giving him credit for defying the odds.

How is this possible when the New York Times said prior to the election that "the underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White a house in November."? Even if credit is given to Obama for "starting" the trend, no one expected it to continue. Put it this way, since no one with less than 24:7 free time on their hands could investigate the due credit or responsibility for each factoid on a list, just because they happened under Trump vs anyone else promising things on a campaign trail: do you really think this type of growth would be happening if Hillary won? He is a bloody businessman, so of course he'd rather be negotiating deals for the upper hand rather than end up beholden to various big business donors steering his election any which way they please.

Granted yes, of course wealthier people are benefiting more, because they simply have more skin in the game. Theymre the ones who will really be creating jobs and additional wealth for their workers and the economy as a whole. The only thing I envy of a typical Fortune 500 CEO is their bank account. Chances are most of them - at least the "good" ones - are more stressed out and exhausted from the burden of being responsible for so many choices that affect so many people. The other key takeaway is, everyone once started out as a small business. Trump easily recognized that wealth and growth isn't created through excessive regulation and taxation.

The other big thing that makes me laugh is how North Korea has been in political isolation for several administrations, yet Trump of all people managed to break down that barrier as well. I have a feeling if Obama has done that he would've been given another Nobel peace prize, and damn near given Sainthood status by the leftist pundits. People can call it circumstantial or downplay it in any other number of ways, but again, it leads me to wonder how things would've played out, if at all, if someone else was in office. God knows the career politicians have had more than their fair share of chances to change things. But no, ironically it was always business as usual for them.

I'd like to comment more when I have time, but the bottom line I'm getting at is, there is a grey area to things that people on one side of the other often choose not to operate in for any number of reasons. Yes, Trump has done a lot of questionable things and made a lot of bad decisions before and after taking office, but to simply write him off as an incompetent moron or rely on hearsay comments of other talking heads to form a definitive opinion is ultimately self defeating and counterproductive in itself. He's still managed to somehow accomplish more than most people in the world, and with far more adversity; especially with much of it being self-inflicted, but that's just a part of his overarching (read: controversial) personality and why he's still such a large media draw. It's kinda sad and fascinating at the same time.

hanselthecaretaker:

Lil devils x:

?

Here?s a few comments on the economy from NPR and CNN, which are both typically left leaning. Even though the latter still couldn?t help itself by veering off into other negative topics. Here?s another typically liberal media outlet asserting the same notion of giving him credit for defying the odds.

How is this possible when the New York Times said prior to the election that ?the underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White a house in November.?? Put it this way, since no one with less than 24:7 free time on their hands would investigate each claim on a list just because Trump made them vs anyone else promising things on a campaign trail: do you really think this type of growth would be happening if Hillary won? He is a bloody businessman, so of course he?d rather be negotiating deals for the upper hand rather than end up beholden to various big business donors steering his election any which way they please. Granted yes, of course wealthier people are benefiting more, because they simply have more skin in the game. They?re the ones who will really be creating jobs and additional wealth for their workers and the economy as a whole. The only thing I envy of a typical Fortune 500 CEO is their bank account. Chances are most of them - at least the ?good? ones - are more stressed out and exhausted from the burden of being responsible for so many choices that affect so many people. The other key takeaway is, everyone once started out as a small business.

The other big thing that makes me laugh is how North Korea has been in political isolation for several administrations, yet Trump of all people managed to break down that barrier as well. I have a feeling if Obama has done that he would?ve been given another Nobel peace prize, and damn near given Sainthood status by the leftist pundits. People can call it circumstantial or downplay it in any other number of ways, but again, it leads me to wonder how things would?ve played out, if at all, if someone else was in office. God knows the career politicians have had more than their fair share of chances to change things. But no, ironically it was always business as usual for them.

I?d like to comment more when I have time, but the bottom line I?m getting at is, there is a grey area to things that people on one side of the other often choose not to operate in for any number of reasons. Yes, Trump has done a lot of questionable things and made a lot of bad decisions before and after taking office, but to simply write him off as an incompetent moron or rely on hearsay comments of other talking heads to form a definitive opinion is ultimately self defeating and counterproductive in itself. He?s still managed to somehow accomplish more than most people in the world, and with far more adversity; especially with much of it being self-inflicted, but that?s just a part of his overarching (read: controversial) personality and why he?s still such a large media draw. It?s kinda sad and fascinating at the same time.

First of all, I could care less how Liberal an opinion piece is, it matters whether or not it is accurate or omitting data.
Are you reading the links you are providing?

The First NPS link made it pretty clear in it's summary:

broader measures of the overall job market and wages show the economy continues to follow the steady, upward glide path that began under Obama.

Isn't a " despite the odds" it was already happening. Listening to what Bernie stated about the jobs being provided in his speech above is an important fact to take note of here. People are working multiple jobs and still not able to afford a home. More of the wealth in the US is being drained from communities and funneled into fewer hands than ever and currently the most vulnerable are more at risk than ever.

Really? Look at the living standards of most Americans, and you get a very different picture.
Yes, the stock market has boomed since Trump became president. But it?s looking increasingly wobbly as Trump?s trade wars take a toll.
Over 80 percent of the stock market is owned by the richest 10 percent of Americans anyway, so most Americans never got much out of Trump?s market boom to begin with.
The trade wars are also starting to take a toll on ordinary workers. Trump?s steel tariffs have cost Ford $1 billion so far, for example, forcing the automaker to plan mass layoffs.
What about economic growth? Data from the Commerce Department shows the economy at full speed, 4.2 percent growth for the second quarter.
But very little of that growth is trickling down to average Americans. Adjusted for inflation, hourly wages aren?t much higher now than they were forty years ago.
Trump slashed taxes on the wealthy and promised everyone else a $4,000 wage boost. But the boost never happened.
That?s a big reason why Republicans aren?t campaigning on their tax cut, just about their only legislative accomplishment.
Trump and congressional Republicans refuse to raise the minimum wage, which is stuck at $7.25 an hour.
Trump?s Labor Department is also repealing a rule that increased the number of workers entitled to time-and-a-half for overtime.
While unemployment is down to 2.7 percent, jobs are less secure than ever. Contract workers?who aren?t eligible for family or medical leave, unemployment insurance, the minimum wage, or worker?s compensation?now occupy one out of every five jobs in America.
Trump?s Labor Department has invited more companies to reclassify employees as contract workers. Its new rule relaxes the California Supreme Court?s recent decision requiring that workers be presumed employees unless proven otherwise

https://www.newsweek.com/robert-reich-truth-about-trumps-booming-economy-opinion-1169901

In addition, Trump was a terrible businessman. That was why he declared bankruptcy and ripped so many people off repeatedly. The Taxpayers paid for his screwups and he took the money and ran. Yes, the Economy would have done just as well under Clinton, in fact with her infrastructure and renewable energy plan it would be doing better as she actually planned for the future rather than setting the US back with backwards ideas like coal and increased pollution plants. China is now the worlds largest producer of solar energy and set to exceed their Paris accord goals which will increase contracts given to them while decreasing the ones provided to the US. The US is going to fall behind because Trump isn't investing in the future. Did you bother to read Hillary's actual first years budget and economic plan? She didn't fly by the seat of her pants and have her economists quit on her as Trump did, she actually had solid economic teams putting together her plans, laying the groundwork for the future, not hiring random news commenter's that pretend to be experts. Unlike Trump, she actually hired teams of experts to create her plans.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/why-donald-trump-isn-t-the-successful-businessman-he-claims-to-be-us-elections-republican-politics-7173666.html
https://www.newsweek.com/2016/08/12/donald-trumps-business-failures-election-2016-486091.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-cohn-idUSKCN1GI2ZS
https://thinkprogress.org/larry-kudlow-bad-economic-predictions-f02ebf47c918/

Trump did what with North korea? South Korea had been tirelessly negotiating like mad for a very long time here, even going as far to kiss both Trumps and Kim jong un's arses relentlessly, however, it still looks like not much is happening yet. The same ol same ol of North Korea saying all sorts of shat and still doing whatever the hell they want. What exactly has changed? Bullshitting each other and not accomplishing anything is somehow better than not speaking?

Weeks before a second summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the top U.S. military commander for Asia on Tuesday echoed an intelligence assessment that North Korea is unlikely to give up all its nuclear weapons.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-military-idUSKCN1Q1298

I wouldn't hold my breath expecting anything to come of this as of yet. If he can get them to denuclearlize, great, if not same shat different day. I hope he is productive there, but so far all I have seen is smoke and mirrors. We actually discussed this at length on these forums last year. In addition, accepting an invite doesn't do much. The reason why the other presidents did not accept the invite was due to the human rights abuses that they required to be ceased as a starting point, that Trump could care less about. Trump has a record of being pro human rights abuse, that isn't exactly a good thing. What is happening here besides two assholes who like torture BS'ng one another for show and not actually accomplishing anything?

As I said before, Trump has done a couple of good things, even if his motivation was questionable. That still does not make up for the many many bad things.

hanselthecaretaker:

Lil devils x:

?

Here?s a few comments on the economy from NPR and CNN, which are both typically left leaning. Even though the latter still couldn?t help itself by veering off into other negative topics. Here?s another typically liberal media outlet asserting the same notion of giving him credit for defying the odds.

CNN, NPR and CNBC are Third Way, centerist, populist websites. They're neoliberals who care. A left-wing website would be something like Huffpost or The Guardian.

Besides that, all Trump has done (according to those articles) is enact the standard Regan/Thatcherite policy: cut top-end taxes at the expense of everyone else, cut back on necessary regulation, make cuts to vital services and take on even more debt. Anyone who has studied history can tell that this will result in the same pattern as always: major boom, sudden slowdown, massive crash, tax cut, recovery. Rinse and repeat; that's exactly how Reganonomics is designed to work.

Those articles also point out that wage growth has barely improved and most of the economic recovery had already begun in the Obama era. Not only that, but NPR pointed out that these booms are centered around secondary industries, which have benefited from tariffs, while the more sustainable services industry (which accounts for about 68% of the GDP, if I remember correctly) has seen little change. In other words, things have improved at the top end of town, but the effect is limited elsewhere.

How is this possible when the New York Times said prior to the election that ?the underlying reality of low growth will haunt whoever wins the White a house in November.??

Because Trump has put a temporary stopgap on the collapse of supply-side economics. Also because while economists make predictions, they're not wizards with the ability to see into the future.

Put it this way, since no one with less than 24:7 free time on their hands would investigate each claim on a list just because Trump made them vs anyone else promising things on a campaign trail: do you really think this type of growth would be happening if Hillary won?

No, I think the US would be a slower, albeit stabler path to recovery. A boom always leads to a bust, dickhead. That is a key principle modern economics. [EDIT]: Also, fact-checking is a standard journalistic practice. In fact, you should be grateful you live in a country with a diverse range of media outlets to hold politicians accountable, rather than, say, my country, where Rupert Murdoch controls over a a third of all media.

He is a bloody businessman, so of course he?d rather be negotiating deals for the upper hand rather than end up beholden to various big business donors steering his election any which way they please.

Ah yes, the infallible logic of "why would a big businessman be working in the interests of big business?" Seriously, do you think Trump would support tariffs if they weren't beneficial to his friends in American Steel?

Granted yes, of course wealthier people are benefiting more, because they simply have more skin in the game. They?re the ones who will really be creating jobs and additional wealth for their workers and the economy as a whole.

Trickle-down economics is a load of crap. CEOs will only supply more if they believe there is demand for it. Supply-side miracles like Apple or Microsoft happen once in a blue moon, not all the time. And I guarantee most of that extra money is going to Panama, not back into the US of A.

The only thing I envy of a typical Fortune 500 CEO is their bank account.

There's more to life than being uber-rich, man. Who the fuck actually needs a billion dollars, anyway?

Chances are most of them - at least the ?good? ones - are more stressed out and exhausted from the burden of being responsible for so many choices that affect so many people.

I think I actually lost my train of though from the sheer stupid of that comment. $2 million USD paychecks, a board of directors and managers to take care of everything for you...I sincerely doubt the average CEO is as overworked as you make out.

The other key takeaway is, everyone once started out as a small business.

Actually most of the uber rich were born into their money (save for tech startups). That small business crap is possible the most obnoxious lie ever sold to the American populance.

The other big thing that makes me laugh is how North Korea has been in political isolation for several administrations, yet Trump of all people managed to break down that barrier as well. I have a feeling if Obama has done that he would?ve been given another Nobel peace prize, and damn near given Sainthood status by the leftist pundits. People can call it circumstantial or downplay it in any other number of ways, but again, it leads me to wonder how things would?ve played out, if at all, if someone else was in office. God knows the career politicians have had more than their fair share of chances to change things. But no, ironically it was always business as usual for them.

Well, Obama was to busy tactfully negotiating with an up and coming world power (Iran) and nearby socialist stronghold (Cuba) to deal with a powerless Chinese puppet state and bully. Not to mention that China rather likes having a barrier between them the No 1. example of American Imperialism (South Korea). But good job Trump, you've given in to the demands of a tyrannical dictatorship under the influence of your purported No 1. enemy, while burning the bridges Obama built to Iran and Cuba. Outstanding move!

I?d like to comment more when I have time

Please don't.

but the bottom line I?m getting at is, there is a grey area to things that people on one side of the other often choose not to operate in for any number of reasons.

Actually they do, you're just cherry-picking your sources and blocking anything that doesn't agree with your pro-Trump worldview.

Yes, Trump has done a lot of questionable things and made a lot of bad decisions before and after taking office,

That's one way of putting it, I suppose.

but to simply write him off as an incompetent moron or rely on hearsay comments of other talking heads to form a definitive opinion is ultimately self defeating and counterproductive in itself.

Well for once we agree. I think we should see him as a bratty tyrant who is screwing over his base (with their tacit approval), causing major problems in international relations and sucking up to the very businessmen he attacked in his campaign. Then people might start seeing him as a serious threat.

He?s still managed to somehow accomplish more than most people in the world

image
I mean...compared to Johnny Scumfuck the jobless porn addict from Ohio, maybe. But compared to other world leaders? Fucking forget it.

with far more adversity; especially with much of it being self-inflicted, but that?s just a part of his overarching (read: controversial) personality and why he?s still such a large media draw. It?s kinda sad and fascinating at the same time.

Yes, it's the exact same strategy AOC is using: exploiting the media's desire for headlines by constantly saying controversial stuff. It tends to stop working after a few years though, when "the outlier" becomes "the norm".

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here