Coronavirus Outbreak...

[carpedm9587]

I've defended him against the false accusation that entering into a nondisclosure agreement was illegal. I have never defended the fact that he had an affair with her.

It would help if you provided a link to my post in question, because I do not recall any of this.

I've defended him against the lie that he called White Supremacists "good people". Trump even clarified his remarks in the very same press conference that phrase was plucked from, saying, ""

Yes, when people break the law, they are often separated from their families. It's unfortunate, but not enforcing the law because you feel sorry for them is simply not an option.

Jeff Sessions was a surprisingly weak attorney general who stood idly by while Trump's political enemies spied on him and conducted a two-year sham investigation against him. We'll eventually find out just how deep that rabbit hole goes, and just how delinquent Sessions was in his duty (we already know, for instance, that the FISA warrants were bogus and obtained under false pretenses).

I do not agree with you that the China flu task force led by Mike Pence has done a horrible job handling the situation, nor do I agree with you that Trump's advisers like Doctors Fauci and Birx are promoting scientifically inaccurate misinformation.

It's not so much defending Trump as it is condemning the lies told about him by hypocrites like you.

Now if you're done spreading your self-righteous manure around, I'd like to open a window and air the place out.

Neither Jim nor I have said anything about Fauci and Birz spreading misinformation. Indeed, both of them have been remarkable in their willingness to contradict Trump publicly, especially knowing what he tends to do to anyone who makes him look stupid or dares to disagree with him. It is Trump himself who is the source of misinformation - repeatedly. This is what I have seen you defend (usually by denying it was misinformation). Trump has this unique gift for taking an obvious comment and spinning it into something that was pretty obviously never intended. However, the original comment was just vague enough to technically permit the alternate explanation. He's a master at it. Borderline genius. So "good people on both sides" gets later supplemented with "but I wasn't talking about the Neo-nazis or White Supremacists!" Just who else did he think was there? And exactly what kind of person gets into a line marching and chanting "Jews will not replace us?" You think someone fighting for the preservation of a civil war memorial who is a "good person" is going to get into the march and say, "well, I don't agree with what they are saying - but I'll just march along to support the monument issue?"

When despicable people are pointing to you (Trump) and calling you their hero - it is time for you to take a look at what you are doing and saying that would cause them to do that.

[carpedm9587]

Wow. I have been wondering why the prices at the pump are getting close to $2 a gallon again, and now I know. According to this report, oil prices have plummeted to below zero! They current sit at $-36.73 per barrel - which means the oil producers are PAYING for the oil to be taken off their hands. As odd as this seems, apparently their cost for transportation and storage exceeds this, so they are better off paying than trying to keep it all on-hand.

Most of this is due to the significant reduction in demand created by a largely idled world population. That should also translate to significantly less CO₂ production, so good for the climate. However, the refiners and distributors are now getting money from both ends: the oil producers and the consumers - so expect their profits to look unbelievable in the coming weeks/months. If there were any justice, the local gas station would be paying me to gas up!


Note for MM: BTW - making note of this "silver lining" doesn't mean I want all those people to be sick and die so I can pay less at the pump. Just thought I'd help you out with that since you seem to be having a hard time with the concept.

[oxmixmudd]

I've defended him against the false accusation that entering into a nondisclosure agreement was illegal. I have never defended the fact that he had an affair with her.


It would help if you provided a link to my post in question, because I do not recall any of this.

You have a really bad memory it would appear.

I've defended him against the lie that he called White Supremacists "good people". Trump even clarified his remarks in the very same press conference that phrase was plucked from, saying, ""

And that is pretty much the spin you use to defend him. So at least you admit you defended him.

Yes, when people break the law, they are often separated from their families. It's unfortunate, but not enforcing the law because you feel sorry for them is simply not an option.

We have laws against cruel and unusual punishment. These separations were extensive, the parents were often fleeing intolerable living conditions and seeking asylum, entering through the approved entry points has been rendered nearly impossible and incredibly unsafe by other white house policies. No plans were in place to track the parents and children so that they could be reliably reunited. In some cases, it is reported the children and the parents still have not been reunited.

Defending such a catastrophe is unconscionable, and yet here you are, continuing to defend it.

Jeff Sessions was a surprisingly weak attorney general who stood idly by while Trump's political enemies spied on him and conducted a two-year sham investigation against him. We'll eventually find out just how deep that rabbit hole goes, and just how delinquent Sessions was in his duty (we already know, for instance, that the FISA warrants were bogus and obtained under false pretenses).

And again, you admit it. Trumps excoriation and public humiliation of Sessions was inexcusable, yet you defended it then, and you defend it now. Sessions, in recusing himself, did EXACTLY what and moral upright person would or should do. He should have been praised for it, not humiliated at every opportunity.

I do not agree with you that the China flu task force led by Mike Pence has done a horrible job handling the situation, nor do I agree with you that Trump's advisers like Doctors Fauci and Birx are promoting scientifically inaccurate misinformation.

I said nothing about Fauci, nor Birx. This would be you purposefully twisting my words, not a very moral action on your part. Fauci and Birx competence is only magnified by the misinformation consistently spoken by Donald Trump, and often immediately contradicted by Fauci and/or Birx.

It's not so much defending Trump as it is condemning the lies told about him by hypocrites like you.

Now if you're done spreading your self-righteous manure around, I'd like to open a window and air the place out.

1) They are not lies told ABOUT Trump, but rather lies told BY Trump
2) You don't seem to quite understand the different between the moral distinction between what is right and wrong and the concept of 'self-righteous'. What is right is generally (and in all the cases outlined above) objective, defined by the morals laid out in scripture and/or our culture (which to a great extent are based on scripture). Self-righteous is the attitude of defining one's self as righteous AND looking down on others one deems unrighteous. Self-righteousness in scripture is often tied to excusing ones own sins while condeming others. IT is never defined in terms of calling out unrighteousness itself.

My post above has nothing to do with my righteousness. It has to do with when you have defended Donald Trump when he has done what is wrong. And the fact is you continually defend Donald Trump in his actions when they are dead wrong, objectively so.

[Mountain Man]

Fauci and Birx [...] both of them have been remarkable in their willingness to contradict Trump publicly...

This is your brain on fake news.

In fact, Dr. Fauci, at least, has been one of your President's biggest defenders praising his leadership and has slammed reporters on multiple occasions for using lies to try to drive a wedge between him and President Trump.

[Mountain Man]

You have a really bad memory it would appear.

No, I just don't remember that particular incident. So am I to assume you will not be providing a link to help me refresh my memory?

Oh well, I'm sure I'll get over it.

[oxmixmudd]

No, I just don't remember that particular incident. So am I to assume you will not be providing a link to help me refresh my memory?

Oh well, I'm sure I'll get over it.

No - it's over three years ago and the search engine on this site is ... lacking ... to say the least.

[Mountain Man]

No - it's over three years ago and the search engine on this site is ... lacking ... to say the least.

Gee, that's too bad.

[seanD]

Yes, I know - but the margins were razor thin. There was a vast block in this country, close to half the voters, that purposefully elected to pull the level for Trump. And then there was a huge block that just stayed home. The combination of those two is most of the country.

Now we have seen what this man is for four years. If the combination of those two blocks is still as massive as it was in 2016 - it says some pretty ugly things about this country of ours, IMO. Frankly, I am amazed anyone would pull a lever for him. It is basically communicating to our children that lying, bullying, name-calling, vindictiveness, refusing to call out evil as evil, and always placing oneself first is now an acceptable norm in our society. What kind of person wants that for our society? How can anyone look themselves in the mirror and continue to affirm this man?

I understand those who voted on principle for things like pro-life. That too is a moral issue. But Trump's base is not just grudgingly accepting the bad so they can achieve that policy end. They are enthusiastically affirming him, cheering at his outrages, defending his actions, and even demanding more (e.g., "send them back" and "lock her up" and so forth).

I have spent the last 3.5 years embarrassed for our country. I have no desire to spend the next 4.5 years feeling the same way.

Took us out of the totally pointless Paris Accord (that no other country follows because they can't, though they love to virtue signal and pretend like they're really really going to try). Blocked TPP (though he did insinuate another NAFTA-type accord, though I haven't really looked into whether it's good or bad, but apparently wasn't as bad as TPP). Protects our first and second amendment. And though he has worryingly expressed interest in red flag laws, I'm guessing with enough push-back from his base, he'd back down, something I'm positive a Dem would never back down from. Those are just a few off the top of my head. Of course, he's not without fault. My biggest pet peeve is his BS he spews about the economy and the markets, when that literally contradicts himself and everything he said during the election. But the 1st and 2nd amendments are vital to Christians in this time, and I know for a fact they would be completely butchered under a Dem potus. I don't want a shooting civil war in this country.

If you respond, please keep it succinct and to the point. You always ramble in these long boring monologues. Thanks.

[carpedm9587]

This is your brain on fake news.

In fact, Dr. Fauci, at least, has been one of your President's biggest defenders praising his leadership and has slammed reporters on multiple occasions for using lies to try to drive a wedge between him and President Trump.

Umm...where exactly did I say that Fauci and/or Bixr did not compliment the president?

What I said, again was, a) Fauci and Bixr have been dependable in their information, b) neither Jim nor I suggested they weren't, c) Trump is the source of misinformation, d) both Fauci and Bixr have corrected him on numerous occasions.

You don't appear to be responding to what was actually posted, and you appear to be selectively harvesting what both Fauci and Bixr have said. Color me surprised...

[carpedm9587]

Took us out of the totally pointless Paris Accord (that no other country follows because they can't, though they love to virtue signal and pretend like they're really really going to try).

What he did was remove us from an agreement put in place by the U.S. without cause. The message was that no country can trust the U.S. to keep its word if the next president happens to disagree. The wise course would have been to begin the process of augmenting and extending the agreement with his often-bragged-about-but-seldom-seen "negotiation skills."

Blocked TPP (though he did insinuate another NAFTA-type accord, though I haven't really looked into whether it's good or bad, but apparently wasn't as bad as TPP).

Both Sanders and Clinton in 2016 had rejected this as a flawed treaty. But instead of working to fix the flaws and keep us in the mix, Mr. Trump took his toys and went home, and now China is aggressively pursuing trade alliances around the world without U.S. involvement. So he basically ceded leadership on international trade to China.

Protects our first and second amendment. And though he has worryingly expressed interest in red flag laws, I'm guessing with enough push-back from his base, he'd back down, something I'm positive a Dem would never back down from.

Red flag laws are needed, as are universal background checks. No right is ever absolute, for anyone anywhere. They all have limits and bounds.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. Of course, he's not without fault. My biggest pet peeve is his BS he spews about the economy and the markets, when that literally contradicts himself and everything he said during the election.

On this we agree.

But the 1st and 2nd amendments are vital to Christians in this time, and I know for a fact they would be completely butchered under a Dem potus. I don't want a shooting civil war in this country.

First, I have no clue why Christians are uniquely vested in the 1st and 2nd amendment. Second, it is the prevalence of the sentiment expressed in the last sentence in this section that shifted my perspective on the 2nd amendment. I used to be a moderate on it: put together some red flag laws, universal background checks, reasonable magazine controls, and controls for semi-automatic weapons. Now, the continual reference to armed revolt by gun advocates has convinced me that the 2nd amendment is fatally flawed and needs to be repealed and replaced with an amendment that is more clearly worded and allows for protection of the population for the dangers of unrestrained firearm sales.

If you respond, please keep it succinct and to the point. You always ramble in these long boring monologues. Thanks.

You are welcome to skip/ignore my posts. I promise not to be offended.

[Mountain Man]

Breaking News: New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is a moron...

https://nypost.com/2020/04/20/uncons...mes-de-blasio/

[Mountain Man]

...both Fauci and Bixr have corrected [my President] on numerous occasions.

This is the fake news part, and Fauci has repeatedly called out reporters who have tried to run with this false narrative.

[seanD]

What he did was remove us from an agreement put in place by the U.S. without cause. The message was that no country can trust the U.S. to keep its word if the next president happens to disagree. The wise course would have been to begin the process of augmenting and extending the agreement with his often-bragged-about-but-seldom-seen "negotiation skills."



Both Sanders and Clinton in 2016 had rejected this as a flawed treaty. But instead of working to fix the flaws and keep us in the mix, Mr. Trump took his toys and went home, and now China is aggressively pursuing trade alliances around the world without U.S. involvement. So he basically ceded leadership on international trade to China.



Red flag laws are needed, as are universal background checks. No right is ever absolute, for anyone anywhere. They all have limits and bounds.



On this we agree.



First, I have no clue why Christians are uniquely vested in the 1st and 2nd amendment. Second, it is the prevalence of the sentiment expressed in the last sentence in this section that shifted my perspective on the 2nd amendment. I used to be a moderate on it: put together some red flag laws, universal background checks, reasonable magazine controls, and controls for semi-automatic weapons. Now, the continual reference to armed revolt by gun advocates has convinced me that the 2nd amendment is fatally flawed and needs to be repealed and replaced with an amendment that is more clearly worded and allows for protection of the population for the dangers of unrestrained firearm sales.



You are welcome to skip/ignore my posts. I promise not to be offended.

Well, we disagree about political policies. What a shock. But now you know why we vote Trump and refuse to vote for a Dem, in spite of his flaws. You can disagree about policy, but that's just a matter of opinion.

[carpedm9587]

Well, we disagree about political policies. What a shock. But now you know why we vote Trump and refuse to vote for a Dem, in spite of his flaws. You can disagree about policy, but that's just a matter of opinion.

In my book, "policy" takes second place to "morality." If Biden began to act the way Trump acts, and to show the same lack of moral character, he would instantly lose my vote - no matter HOW aligned I am with his policies. I will not compromise my moral stance to achieve a few desired "policies." Another president will come along eventually who I CAN in good conscience vote for. That doesn't mean I expect t politician to be perfect. They are after all human. But there are a few expected things: lying should not be a habit, when caught at it you should have the decency to be ashamed, bullying is not OK, calling names is childish and doesn't even belong in a school yard, seeking vengeance for every imagined slight is not the mark of a good person, and using your political office for self-gain and self-enrichment is simply not OK.

The same is true for Trump. If this is the only Republican who can achieve your desired policies, then something is badly wrong with the Republican party and conservatism in general. You might want to consider what that is...

[seanD]

In my book, "policy" takes second place to "morality." If Biden began to act the way Trump acts, and to show the same lack of moral character, he would instantly lose my vote - no matter HOW aligned I am with his policies. I will not compromise my moral stance to achieve a few desired "policies." Another president will come along eventually who I CAN in good conscience vote for.

The same is true for Trump. If this is the only Republican who can achieve your desired policies, then something is badly wrong with the Republican party and conservatism in general. You might want to consider what that is...

Once again, you're confusing morality with shrewdness, and this is because you most likely live in a bubble. Biden is just as corrupt, only he's a whole lot more elegant about it and even knows how get folks to pity him (though now I think it's not an act). He's just as corrupt, just as much a elitist womanizer and sexual harasser as all of them. Why does he hide it so well (except of course when he's groping women and little girls on camera)? Probably because he's a career politician. He knows how to say nice things to get naive folks like you to believe he's a nice guy.