I’m hoping, and I still have hope, that it’s simply that you just don’t get it.

[Pyrite]

You misrepresent my statement.

Additionally, all of these were conceded with minimal arguments that were rebutted.

Reduce regulations ✔
America First foreign policy ✔
Appoint constructionist Judges ✔
Trade agreements ✔
Tax reform ✔
Job creation ✔


Both proven and conceded.


You conceded all six promises Trump delivered during the first term.

Now you concede one more.


History is full of such examples.


See above.

Post #144


Wrong. The only thing trump has done is reduce regulations.

You type, "America First foreign policy"....this is not an accomplishment, it's a slogan. You've provided no details, no SPECIFICS, of trump's effecting an action that can be accurately called, "America First foreign policy." (This means you've not yet done the work you have to do to support this particular statement.)

You type, "Appoint constructionist judges"....where did you read this term? Again, as in the above, you've provided no details, no SPECIFICS, of trump's appointing "constructionist judges". (Simply retyping this phrase isn't sufficient. YOU do the work of defining what YOU have been told is a "constructionist judge", then YOU quote trump's saying he will appoint, "constructionist judges", then YOU follow up with proving so-and-so are, indeed "constructionist judges".)

You type, "Trade agreements".....What trade agreements has trump negotiated and signed? Be specific: name them, provide dates they were signed, names of signatories, and plenty of details re the contents of these "trade agreements". AND, of course, you cannot count trump's renegotiation of that trade agreement with Canada and Mexico (during his first term), because he's VIOLATING it as we speak.

You type, "Tax reform".....good grief, if you believe trump's and the GOP's massive tax cut that benefits primarily the uber-rich somehow reflects "tax REFORM", there's no hope. No, giving the wealthy more tax cuts is not at all "reform".

You type, "Job creation".....where? when? how many? Provide details, dates, and corroboration of any and all claims that trump "created jobs". Good luck!

Remember, YOU made the claim that trump delivered on his promises. That means YOU have to all the work associated with proving YOUR claim.

 

[SCrider]

Well, the nemesis in your mind has blurred up your supposed good discernment. The top 3 of our country during the Obama administration.....Obama, Biden, and Hillary are well known highly corrupt politicians, becoming more and more relevant in todays politics, regardless of those willing to remain blind.

Your good discernment caused you to remain silent during a Presidential term with obvious dementia, plainly seen by all, cocaine in the WH, etc....all while they were somehow permitted to have the largest human trafficking operation the world has ever seen.......but your discernment is keen, huh?

Examples?

 

[Perotista]

Trump is a bad person. Sorry, that’s simply a truthful statement born out but the very public, well documented, actual facts of the very public record.

He’s literally stolen hundreds of millions from tens of thousands of victims. He didn’t use a gun. He used lies, deceit, fraud. His tools were a bogus charity and university among other things. If you or I did such things we’d rightly be serving prison time for them. Trump, if he was where justice says he ought to be, could never be President. He’d have died in prison where Bernie Madoff, a similar unethical human being, wound up.

You MAGA folk need to know, because it’s true, if you knowingly support this behavior in leadership that there is something off in your character and personal ethics.

Im sorry, Hate me for saying so but I don’t say it out of hate. Not even dislike. You don’t try to save people you hate or dislike.

I’m hoping it’s just that you have gotten so bogged down in this us vs them thing that you’ve missed this very real, valid, point. That there is a battle of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, ethical vs. unethical going in here buried in this quagmire of a political argument It’s not about the politics folks. Want what you want politically. Don’t let that cause you to lose sight of the character and ethics battle going on within it.

If you support a truly unethical and character challenged BAD PERSON to get what you want politically than something in YOUR ethics and character is off.

For yourself, your kids, your society; fix that before it’s too late.

MAGA makes up approximately a quarter of the electorate. Trump received 49.8% of the vote, so a lot of non-MAGA folks voted for him. Why? Simply put they thought Biden had done a bad job of governing. Such a lousy job that they would vote for a candidate they rejected back in 2020, rather soundly I might add.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/approval-rating

Most of those non-MAGA types who voted for Trump thought they had it better under him than they had it under Biden. 48% of all Americans said their lives were better under Trump vs. 34% who said so under Biden. Question 53

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_NgtZTja.pdf

It was pocketbook issues that elected Trump. Inflation in particular along with illegal immigration which most thought Biden a total failure in handling these two issues. Below are his approval/disapproval numbers on these two issues.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/issues/inflation

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/issues/immigration

Most of those non-MAGA types knew Trump was a bad person. But to them electing a bad person to deal with issues that either the Biden administration had failed on or didn’t properly address made them hold their nose and vote for Trump. At the time, November last year, he was the lesser of two evils, the least worse candidate, the candidate they wanted to lose the least. It certainly wasn’t because he was liked as a person.

 

[Jay59]

Post #144

Wrong. The only thing trump has done is reduce regulations. You type, "America First foreign policy"....this is not an accomplishment, it's a slogan. You've provided no details, no SPECIFICS, of trump's effecting an action that can be accurately called, "America First foreign policy." (This means you've not yet done the work you have to do to support this particular statement.) You type, "Appoint constructionist judges"....where did you read this term? Again, as in the above, you've provided no details, no SPECIFICS, of trump's appointing "constructionist judges". (Simply retyping this phrase isn't sufficient. YOU do the work of defining what YOU have been told is a "constructionist judge", then YOU quote trump's saying he will appoint, "constructionist judges", then YOU follow up with proving so-and-so are, indeed "constructionist judges".) You type, "Trade agreements".....What trade agreements has trump negotiated and signed? Be specific: name them, provide dates they were signed, names of signatories, and plenty of details re the contents of these "trade agreements". AND, of course, you cannot count trump's renegotiation of that trade agreement with Canada and Mexico (during his first term), because he's VIOLATING it as we speak. You type, "Tax reform".....good grief, if you believe trump's and the GOP's massive tax cut that benefits primarily the uber-ri ch somehow reflects "tax REFORM", there's no hope. No, giving the wealthy more tax cuts is not at all "reform". You type, "Job creation".....where? when? how many? Provide details, dates, and corroboration of any and all claims that trump "created jobs". Good luck! Remember, YOU made the claim that trump delivered on his promises. That means YOU have to all the work associated with proving YOUR claim.

Since you will not even pretend to engage the premise, I leave you as disproven.

Trump keep his promises and you have failed to retute it.

 

[Pyrite]

Post #144


Wrong. The only thing trump has done is reduce regulations.

You type, "America First foreign policy"....this is not an accomplishment, it's a slogan. You've provided no details, no SPECIFICS, of trump's effecting an action that can be accurately called, "America First foreign policy." (This means you've not yet done the work you have to do to support this particular statement.)

You type, "Appoint constructionist judges"....where did you read this term? Again, as in the above, you've provided no details, no SPECIFICS, of trump's appointing "constructionist judges". (Simply retyping this phrase isn't sufficient. YOU do the work of defining what YOU have been told is a "constructionist judge", then YOU quote trump's saying he will appoint, "constructionist judges", then YOU follow up with proving so-and-so are, indeed "constructionist judges".)

You type, "Trade agreements".....What trade agreements has trump negotiated and signed? Be specific: name them, provide dates they were signed, names of signatories, and plenty of details re the contents of these "trade agreements". AND, of course, you cannot count trump's renegotiation of that trade agreement with Canada and Mexico (during his first term), because he's VIOLATING it as we speak.

You type, "Tax reform".....good grief, if you believe trump's and the GOP's massive tax cut that benefits primarily the uber-rich somehow reflects "tax REFORM", there's no hope. No, giving the wealthy more tax cuts is not at all "reform".

You type, "Job creation".....where? when? how many? Provide details, dates, and corroboration of any and all claims that trump "created jobs". Good luck!

Remember, YOU made the claim that trump delivered on his promises. That means YOU have to all the work associated with proving YOUR claim.

Post #176

Since you will not even pretend to engage the premise, I leave you as disproven.

Trump keep his promises and you have failed to retute it.

Post #179


Damn! I was looking forward to your telling me where you came across the term, "constructionist judges" and what you believe it means.

Oh, well, it's likely another MAGA will use that phrase as an example of trump's following through on his promises. I'm not counting on that poster's being able to explain what he or she or they means, but, you never know....

 

[Gaius46]

More than none.

Leadership has hard questions, which can involve choosing many over one or a few.


I have seen nothing that disqualifies Trump.

If you have evidence, bring it.

As I said my questions have nothing to do with Trump per se, nor with the hard decisions a President has to make. My question is about you - Jay59 - and what level of evil you'd accept in a leader - any leader - just because you agree with their agenda.

You seem to be saying you'd accept a murdering rapist as President if you agree with their policies. How about a serial killer? At what point does behavior outweigh policy for you?

It's an easy question.

 

[Jay59]

Post #176 Post #179 Damn! I was looking forward to your telling me where you came across the term, "constructionist judges" and what you believe it means. Oh, well, it's likely another MAGA will use that phrase as an example of trump's following through on his promises. I'm not counting on that poster's being able to explain what he or she or they means, but, you never know....

You have nothing.

Dully noted.

As I said my questions have nothing to do with Trump per se, nor with the hard decisions a President has to make. My question is about you - Jay59 - and what level of evil you'd accept in a leader - any leader - just because you agree with their agenda. You seem to be saying you'd accept a murdering rapist as President if you agree with their policies. How about a serial killer? At what point does behavior outweigh policy for you? It's an easy question.

The question is not whether you accept the leader, it's whether you accept the results.

The results are good so far.

 

[Pyrite]

You have nothing.

Dully noted.


The question is not whether you accept the leader, it's whether you accept the results.

The results are good so far.

Post #182


"Dully" it is, well and truly.

 

[Jay59]

Post #182

Already covered.

"Dully" it is, well and truly.

Do you have any real questions?

 

[Pyrite]

Already covered.


Do you have any real questions?

As I indicated in Post #183, your "dully" response left me with no questions.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

But people such as Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer, or Nancy Pelosi are the kind of people you need to support to show high quality character and morals, lol.....

A ridiculous OP, another....."mine are good, yours are bad" petty comparisons, anything to disparage Trump at all costs........it's literally all they have left.

In fairness, your OP’s are no different.

 

[Gaius46]

You have nothing.

Dully noted.


The question is not whether you accept the leader, it's whether you accept the results.

The results are good so far.

I guess then if Pol Pot or Stalin or John Wayne Gacy promised to get you what you wanted you'd vote for them. Good to know.

 

[dairyair]

So trump has been a nice, decent, good human being all his life?
Or, you believe others are bad, so why can't we have bad also?

Can you point to the swindling those you named above have swindled? Or the many many marriages they went through?

@redbeer

No, you can't name anyone who is a dem you mentioned that swindled people out of their money. Like your nice guy trump does.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Dude, it's your burden that you cannot see what is in front of you.

Trump is many things, but he does not reduce to your one-sided characterizations.

Look at his accomplishments, rather than your pre-conceived handicaps.

Depends on your characterization of right and wrong. If you believe, as I and most Conservative traditionalists do, that right and wrong, ethics, aren’t situational than you see the arc as continuous. His bad faith acts in his personal and business lives are proof of his propensity for such behavior in his political acts.

So it’s easy to point at his crypto and real estate dealing while in office, among many other examples, and say, “See, more of the same.”

Trump is not “many things” t- us. He is the culmination of the TOTALITY of his very well documented personal history. ALL of which states the OBVIOUS; Trump is a person of bad character and horrendous ethics.

Sorry you can’t see that.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

MAGA makes up approximately a quarter of the electorate. Trump received 49.8% of the vote, so a lot of non-MAGA folks voted for him. Why? Simply put they thought Biden had done a bad job of governing. Such a lousy job that they would vote for a candidate they rejected back in 2020, rather soundly I might add.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/approval-rating

Most of those non-MAGA types who voted for Trump thought they had it better under him than they had it under Biden. 48% of all Americans said their lives were better under Trump vs. 34% who said so under Biden. Question 53

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_NgtZTja.pdf

It was pocketbook issues that elected Trump. Inflation in particular along with illegal immigration which most thought Biden a total failure in handling these two issues. Below are his approval/disapproval numbers on these two issues.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/issues/inflation

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/issues/immigration

Most of those non-MAGA types knew Trump was a bad person. But to them electing a bad person to deal with issues that either the Biden administration had failed on or didn’t properly address made them hold their nose and vote for Trump. At the time, November last year, he was the lesser of two evils, the least worse candidate, the candidate they wanted to lose the least. It certainly wasn’t because he was liked as a person.

MAGA likely makes up about a third of our electorate, not 25%.

To answer in regard to your point though, which is legitimate, we are becoming a supercilious, dim, populace. Under-educated, of short attention span, lacking in deductive reasoning and critical thinking skills. Specifically morally lost due to a switching of belief systems that makes situational ethical thinking somehow OK. No longer seeing ethics as static. Right may be defined by the set of circumstances unfolding. It doesn’t actually work that way. With very limited exception right is always right regardless of the circumstances unfolding.

Unfortunately the existence of the above has changed the nature of a good portion of our electorate, making them less suitable to vote their own best interests by making solid choices based in solid critical thinking that considers important things like personal histories that represent good character and sound ethical thinking of the candidates.

Unable to DISCERN bad from worse, it’s all the same to them. So it’s OK to through the spanner into the machinery to piss off and “own” the competition. Even if they harm themselves (and those like them) in the process.

Our very MAGA future:

 

[Perotista]

MAGA likely makes up about a third of our electorate, not 25%.

To answer in regard to your point though, which is legitimate, we are becoming a supercilious, dim, populace. Under-educated, of short attention span, lacking in deductive reasoning and critical thinking skills. Specifically morally lost due to a switching of belief systems that makes situational ethical thinking somehow OK. No longer seeing ethics as static. Right may be defined by the set of circumstances unfolding. It doesn’t actually work that way. With very limited exception right is always right regardless of the circumstances unfolding.

Unfortunately the existence of the above has changed the nature of a good portion of our electorate, making them less suitable to vote their own best interests by making solid choices based in solid critical thinking that considers important things like personal histories that represent good character and sound ethical thinking of the candidates.

Unable to DISCERN bad from worse, it’s all the same to them. So it’s OK to through the spanner into the machinery to piss off and “own” the competition. Even if they harm themselves (and those like them) in the process.

Our very MAGA future:

View attachment 67583225

I pegged MAGA as those who view Trump very favorably which is 24%. I didn’t include those who view Trump somewhat favorably as I take somewhat favorably meaning they still have some reservation about him however tiny or large. Might be a very questionable way to peg the size of MAGA, but for the time being that is the best I have. Question 7A.

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_7Bn59Tx.pdf

People do things which includes voting that are in their own personal interest. Same for countries. I never have and never would vote for Trump because I really dislike him as a person. Would I vote for him if I thought having him as president would make my life better than the alternative which was Harris. No, I wouldn’t and didn’t. People who vote their own personal interests I don’t view as idiots. The way Biden and company governed which includes Harris was viewed so poorly that Trump became a viable alternative to those who wanted change, any change.

I also fault Harris and her very inept campaign she ran. She didn’t give the people a positive reason to vote for her. Other than she wasn’t Trump. She gave a million and one reasons not to vote for Trump, but no reason to vote for her. There are people out there who need a positive reason to vote for someone.

 

[Jay59]

Depends on your characterization of right and wrong. If you believe, as I and most Conservative traditionalists do, that right and wrong, ethics, aren’t situational than you see the arc as continuous. His bad faith acts in his personal and business lives are proof of his propensity for such behavior in his political acts. So it’s easy to point at his crypto and real estate dealing while in office, among many other examples, and say, “See, more of the same.” Trump is not “many things” t- us. He is the culmination of the TOTALITY of his very well documented personal history. ALL of which states the OBVIOUS; Trump is a person of bad character and horrendous ethics.

All of this begs the question, so what?

The proof of the presidency is in the outcome of its policies, which you refuse to address.

Sorry you can’t see that.

That would be you.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

I pegged MAGA as those who view Trump very favorably which is 24%. I didn’t include those who view Trump somewhat favorably as I take somewhat favorably meaning they still have some reservation about him however tiny or large. Might be a very questionable way to peg the size of MAGA, but for the time being that is the best I have. Question 7A.

https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_7Bn59Tx.pdf

People do things which includes voting that are in their own personal interest. Same for countries. I never have and never would vote for Trump because I really dislike him as a person. Would I vote for him if I thought having him as president would make my life better than the alternative which was Harris. No, I wouldn’t and didn’t. People who vote their own personal interests I don’t view as idiots. The way Biden and company governed which includes Harris was viewed so poorly that Trump became a viable alternative to those who wanted change, any change.

I also fault Harris and her very inept campaign she ran. She didn’t give the people a positive reason to vote for her. Other than she wasn’t Trump. She gave a million and one reasons not to vote for Trump, but no reason to vote for her. There are people out there who need a positive reason to vote for someone.

You advance my case, though you may not know it.

Biden is a standard issue Dem Pol. No better or worse that a large segment of his contemporaries. The record bares that out to be a factual statement. He failure to meet his promise to “be a bridge”, a one term candidate, was incorrect. Especially given the circumstances as they unfolded.

If you look back on these pages though you’ll note I called it correctly at the time, as understanding how people work I realized he’d not keep that promise and said so in October of 2019 when he made it.

His administration was effective, passing numerous bills of import to them through a deeply divided, hostile, Congress. No one could honestly say differently.

So the contention that the Biden Administration was some sort of failure measured in contemporary political standards is a falsehood. So someone using that as an excuse to turn them out on that account isn’t assessing effectively.

Harris was a bad choice for VP. It had more to do with her ethnicity and sex than her qualifications. It wasn’t wrong of the Democrats to pick a woman of Color. They just should have chosen a better one. The way she rose to the first chair to run as the Democratic POTUS candidate a true FUBAR bit of business. That didn’t help.

MAGA, in choosing a former reality TV star, former (no longer now) fake billionaire wanna be oligarch … that alone shows questionable judgement. Who’s next, Paris Hilton?

That they chose so despicable an example of a pathological, narcissist, grifter, cut from the same cloth as Bernie Madoff says the rest about their ability to DISCERN what is in our best interests. That they did it AGAIN, after witnessing his first term, seals it.

I’m sorry, the case on MAGA’s critical thinking skills is rather open and shut.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

All of this begs the question, so what?

The proof of the presidency is in the outcome of its policies, which you refuse to address.

The outcome of his first term policies was a reduction in revenue, an increase steepening in the wealth divide, fewer - not more - good paying factory jobs (that he claims differently is a bold faced lie) as well as a steeping increase in our national debt.

His second term is massive cuts that saved no money while causing chaos in our governing, confusion in our business markets, more dishevel in our stock and bond markets, loss of global faith in the dollar, loss of consumer confidence and our credit rating reduced.

DISCERN already! The nation you save may be your own.

 

[Jay59]

The outcome of his first term policies was a reduction in revenue, an increase steepening in the wealth divide, fewer - not more - good paying factory jobs (that he claims differently is a bold faced lie) as well as a steeping increase in our national debt. His second term is massive cuts that saved no money while causing chaos in our governing, confusion in our business markets, more dishevel in our stock and bond markets, loss of global faith in the dollar, loss of consumer confidence and our credit rating reduced. DISCERN already! The nation you save may be your own.

If you will not address reality, we have a problem.

 

[redbeer]

@redbeer

No, you can't name anyone who is a dem you mentioned that swindled people out of their money. Like your nice guy trump does.

See....look at this, lol. They actually believe all their leaders are all perfect and upright, while the rest of us are Nazi, racist, crooked bigots, lol.....you can't make this up, it's hilarious.

 

[dairyair]

See....look at this, lol. They actually believe all their leaders are all perfect and upright, while the rest of us are Nazi, racist, crooked bigots, lol.....you can't make this up, it's hilarious.

See... look at this.
deflecting away from your own statements.

Nobody has ever said anyone is perfect. Cept for some Xtians about jesus.

Since you can't show anybody you mentioned as swindling people out of their money. You can't claim they are as bad as your hero trump

 

[ModernDiogenes]

If you will not address reality, we have a problem.

So in your world Trump gave us plenty of new, well paid, factory jobs? He built the wall? He didn’t reduce revenue and increase debt overall? He increased working and middle class income significantly? The wealth divide didn’t expand at an increased rate?

We can reshore manufacturing jobs, but Trump hasn’t done it: Trade rebalancing, infrastructure, and climate investments could create 17 million good jobs and rebuild the American economy

Trump’s trade policies have failed to curb offshoring—and they have not addressed the root causes of America’s growing trade deficits and the decline of American manufacturing. On top of that, COVID-19—and the administration’s mismanagement of the crisis—has wiped out much of the last decade’s...

www.epi.org

One year in: Has Trump been good for US workers? | Brookings

Harry Holzer reviews whether President Trump's presidency has been good for U.S. workers in its first year.

www.brookings.edu

Google A.I. on federal revenue and debt in Trump’s first administration:

”
In summary
The Trump administration's record on federal revenue was characterized by a combination of significant tax cuts, which initially reduced revenue projections, alongside a period of economic growth and the implementation of tariffs that impacted revenue collections. While economic growth did contribute to revenue, the overall effect of these policies, coupled with increased spending, led to a substantial rise in both the national debt and the budget deficit.”

I could go on. LOTS out there from premium, apolitical, sources.

MY reality isn’t in question. I take pains to see the world precisely how it actually is. I don’t have a party/tribal driven agenda. I care about our Constitutional Republic, fairness, level playing fields, etc. In the current format though I don’t care which side wins as long as they do so in ways that benefit/don’t screw overr people like me.

I gear my political thinking and analysis not along party lines but along best interests of the working and middle classes. That’s MY reality.

Why isn’t it yours?

 

[Jay59]

So in your world Trump gave us plenty of new, well paid, factory jobs? He built the wall? He didn’t reduce revenue and increase debt overall? He increased working and middle class income significantly? The wealth divide didn’t expand at an increased rate?

https://www.epi.org/publication/reshoring-manufacturing-jobs/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/one-year-in-has-trump-been-good-for-us-workers/
Google A.I. on federal revenue and debt in Trump’s first administration:
In summary
The Trump administration's record on federal revenue was characterized by a combination of significant tax cuts, which initially reduced revenue projections, alongside a period of economic growth and the implementation of tariffs that impacted revenue collections. While economic growth did contribute to revenue, the overall effect of these policies, coupled with increased spending, led to a substantial rise in both the national debt and the budget deficit.”
I could go on. LOTS out there from premium, apolitical, sources.

Apolitical sources indicate that over half of Trump's first-term debt is directly related to COVID.

MY reality isn’t in question. I take pains to see the world precisely how it actually is. I don’t have a party/tribal driven agenda. I care about our Constitutional Republic, fairness, level playing fields, etc. In the current format though I don’t care which side wins as long as they do so in ways that benefit/don’t screw overr people like me.

We will disagree on this.

I gear my political thinking and analysis not along party lines but along best interests of the working and middle classes. That’s MY reality.

You seem much more ideological than this implies.

Why isn’t it yours?

It is.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Apolitical sources indicate that over half of Trump's first-term debt is directly related to COVID.


We will disagree on this.


You seem much more ideological than this implies.


It is.

Fine. Let me ask this of you.

Did Trump publicly humiliate his three wives?

Did Trump use his charitable foundation to steal by use of fraud?

Did Trump run a fraudulent university?

Did Trump violate the law by using election finance money to porn star’s silence?

Did Trump slander E. Jean Carroll when he stated she had lied about his mole stung her in the dressing room of a store?