Assessment of Mr. Trump

[Tassman]

The center left and neocons are a minor blip (that nevertheless rule the country)



are you insane? Trump has been the ONLY check on the war machine. If Hitlery was in power Syria would be another colossal failure as she would have quickly invaded it to remove Assad and left behind more terrorists like she did in Iraq and Libya.

I can't even begin to comprehend how scrambled your brain must be if you think the bloodthirsty liberals and neocons in government are the ones keeping Trump from going to war.

[demi-conservative]

You my are the Fake News Media demi!

Don't see you parroting every word of mine, Fake News parrot you, so no!!!

I think Trump is evil. Now what?

I think we knew that!!! Was asking carpedm, shoo, boy.

[demi-conservative]

and inspired even more bile and spite on Twitter than you normally find there. In short, he the most aggressive president the US has had for a very long time.

:shock:

Twitter will never be same again!!!

[Tassman]

:shock:

Twitter will never be same again!!!

[demi-conservative]

I was trying to spare you (cos it's season!) but very well, dumbass you.

NK uses that kind of language about US about every week or so. Trump just tweet back in kind, blowing off steam plus rattling of saber.

This sort of bark without bite, from both side, makes for peace, dumbass.

[Darth Executor]

You have a tiny brain that is easily distracted by rhetoric, which is why Trump's twitter feed is such an effective tool. Meanwhile, in the actual world, Trump has been president for a year with both republicans and democrats salivating at the thought of nuclear war with Russia over Hillary Clinton's honor and Trump has yet to actually start a war. If Hillary Clinton was president there would be slave markets in ISIS controlled Damascus right now, just like she teamed up with Bush to create ISIS and slave markets in Iraq and teamed up with Obama to create anarchy (and more slave markets) in Libya.

[demi-conservative]

Trump, however, is simply a large spoiled child in an executive office. I have one major fear concerning him at this point. His ego is so powerful and his narcicism so total, his unpopularity has to be eating at him. Historically, there is one thing that has driven up support for a president. It has done so for every one of them I know of, taking G.W. Bush to over 90% approval at one point: war. So I find myself wondering if Trump would go so far as to provoke war to gain popular support.

I have to believe it is VERY possible.

Trump fired only one missile at Syria over '''''''chemical weapons''''''' attack* by Assad. Warmonger Hillary would start fullblown invasion, direct fire with Russians, then WWIII.

*You know, that thing libs all over world were all ' human rights!!!!! the children!!!! civilians!!!!! chemical weapons!!!! ' about until they stopped caring because Fake News stopped reporting, cos they realized Trump wasn't going to stupidly start WWIII over that.

[carpedm9587]

Trump fired only one missile at Syria over '''''''chemical weapons''''''' attack* by Assad. Warmonger Hillary would start fullblown invasion, direct fire with Russians, then WWIII.

*You know, that thing libs all over world were all ' human rights!!!!! the children!!!! civilians!!!!! chemical weapons!!!! ' about until they stopped caring because Fake News stopped reporting, cos they realized Trump wasn't going to stupidly start WWIII over that.

I don't do speculative "would haves." IMO, they are pointless. One side says "would have;" the other says "wouldn't have;" and both insist they are right and neither can prove anything. They are usually just exercises in political self-stimulation.

[One Bad Pig]

I don't do speculative "would haves." IMO, they are pointless. One side says "would have;" the other says "wouldn't have;" and both insist they are right and neither can prove anything. They are usually just exercises in political self-stimulation.

They're not entirely worthless. One side extrapolates from what Madame Clinton did as Secretary of State; Hillary doesn't tend to stop with drawing red lines, like her onetime boss did.

[Jedidiah]

Coorperate on what you can, compromise on what you cannot cooperate, and resist when it becomes a matter of core values. The problem today, IMO, is that both parties classify everything as "core values" on which compromise is not possible, . . .

You are correct in this regard. I personally consider abortion, gun rights, and public sexual morality to be firmly in the core values court. I offered my version of cooperation and got no response.

[carpedm9587]

They're not entirely worthless. One side extrapolates from what Madame Clinton did as Secretary of State; Hillary doesn't tend to stop with drawing red lines, like her onetime boss did.

I view them as pretty much entirely worthless. Speculation about what Trump would have done if he had lost, what Clinton would have done if she had won, what Sanders would have done if he had won, are all essentially pointless. The person making the claim cannot show this to be true - and the person denying the claim cannot show it NOT to be true. I truly do not see the point in it. Trump won. Clinton lost. Sanders lost. What we can know is what Trump has done (is doing) now that he has won - what Clinton has done (is doing) now that she has lost - what Sanders has done (is doing) now that he has lost.

To listen to the right further dump on Clinton for an office she doesn't hold, or the left fluff her up for an office she doesn't hold, is just a waste of time, IMO.

[carpedm9587]

You are correct in this regard. I personally consider abortion, gun rights, and public sexual morality to be firmly in the core values court. I offered my version of cooperation and got no response.

No response from me? If so, it is entirely possible I missed it in the flurry of all of the exchanges. Can you link me to the post?

But I do have to admit to some confusion. Why on earth would my response matter one whit to you if you think I am simply a hypocrite? I'm not offended, mind you. You have every right to your opinion and if that is what you think of me, so be it. But I know that someone I think is disengenous and hypocritical is not someone I am in any way interested in engaging in conversation. What would be the point?

[One Bad Pig]

I view them as pretty much entirely worthless. Speculation about what Trump would have done if he had lost, what Clinton would have done if she had won, what Sanders would have done if he had won, are all essentially pointless. The person making the claim cannot show this to be true - and the person denying the claim cannot show it NOT to be true.

I get the impression that you stopped reading after my first sentence.

I truly do not see the point in it. Trump won. Clinton lost. Sanders lost. What we can know is what Trump has done (is doing) now that he has won - what Clinton has done (is doing) now that she has lost - what Sanders has done (is doing) now that he has lost.

That is indeed rather less speculative. These were important questions pre-election, and helped shape (informed) voters' views. I get the sense that many have not yet accepted the outcome of the election, and thus the conversation continues.

[Jedidiah]

No response from me? If so, it is entirely possible I missed it in the flurry of all of the exchanges. Can you link me to the post?

I don't care to go back through all the posts to find them.

But I do have to admit to some confusion. Why on earth would my response matter one whit to you if you think I am simply a hypocrite?

That was a big part of what led me to see you as a hypocrite. You were so big on compromise, but ignored my compromises on both abortion and gun control. Don't worry about it now at this point.

[carpedm9587]

I get the impression that you stopped reading after my first sentence.

No - I read the entire post. I just disagree with you. I try to stay away from such discussions. I just find them pointless.

That is indeed rather less speculative. These were important questions pre-election, and helped shape (informed) voters' views. I get the sense that many have not yet accepted the outcome of the election, and thus the conversation continues.

Don't get me wrong, OBP. When electing a candidate, looking at their past behavior to arrive at a judgment of what they are most likely do to in the future so as to make a decision about casting a vote is a perfectly valid activity. I looked at Trump's behavior during the campaign and it informed my decision not to vote for him because I did not want a man who acted like that sitting in that office. I looked at Clinton's behavior and likewise identified areas in which I felt she was weak - which is why she was not my first choice either.

My comment was in reference to the post-election speculation about what might have happened if things had turned out differently. I find such discussions largely pointless. If someone is explaining why they voted as they did - that has historical interest. But when someone makes an assertion that they know what would have happened if event X had turned out differently, it's a waste of time. In this case, the election is over - Trump won, Clinton loss. Speculation no longer serves a purpose except (as I noted) to provide a degree of political self-stimulation.