Gee, you Trump supporters sure are getting sensitive about criticism of Trump. Perhaps you should either get a thicker skin, or support someone who doesn't make so many blunders. "Oh my... an article about Trump was posted twice!"
I didn't expect our fringe left friends on the board to be mentally or emotionally stable enough to take my advice. Just remember, when what I said would happen ends up happening, these are the kinds of idiots who ruined it for you.
I could see them ending up winning Trump a second term if they keep it up. It's what ended up happening with Clinton and Obama. The more you attack someone unfairly, the more it solidifies their supporters.....and makes it to where even legitimate criticism is brushed aside.
BS? Hey, any time you want to post anything that contradicts anything I post, I'd be willing to see it. For example, if McFarland didn't share a faked magazine cover as an example of "fake news", I'd be happy to post a correction. And 2024? Feeling pretty optimistic? 'Course, I am guessing you plan on voting for Trump again...
No, absolutely not. Good thing is I do have trust in the system to help soften a crisis that Trump will surely make a bigger mess of as he has already done several times.... at least for now, prior to it being tangled up with yes-only Trump people or dismantled to the point of being useless.
Relying on false equivalency shows a poor grasp of understanding consequences and the lack of an ability to weigh outcomes. I mean, with the way you "debate" it's not particularly surprising, but your condescending tone makes me want to call it out. People who can't rank-order things are just intellectually lazy. They are not the same. They had vastly different policy positions, leadership styles, and agendas. They were incredibly different candidates. Use your brain and come up with a preference. Let's take this scenario: Bob wants a single payer healthcare system. Anna wants to take government completely out of the healthcare game and let the free market allocate resources. If you're a moderate, do both positions suck? Yes! But you don't just throw your hands up and say "well, they both suck so I refuse to take a position on which is better". Someone who a) cares about the society that they live in and b) has some ability to think through consequences, will actually take these two very different positions and prioritize what they mean. Do I prioritize the moral right of people to access healthcare? Do I like Anna's position of letting the free market push innovation in the market to increase our capacity to treat people? Those two things are NOT equal. I don't know, I see this a lot from people who sat out of the election. Maybe a large portion of the American electorate doesn't have the intellectual capacity to go through the exercise. Maybe some of them are just too lazy. But when you come on with a holier-than-thou attitude but can't come up with your own opinion on one of the most fundamental, society-shaping questions of the decade? That's just lame, man.
What you fail to understand here is that when you have 2 options that suck, and neither party is willing to give from their position whatsoever, and one of the 2 is going to happen, why bother supporting either? If you choose the "lesser of two evils" you are still choosing evil. On top of that, you suggesting that there is a "moral right of the people to access healthcare" is stating something that is not a fact as if it is a fact. I disagree that any person has a "moral right" to be provided services without payment. As to the issue itself, I do have a preference, but I'm tired of hearing both sides whine about it when I express it without offering a more legitimate alternative and failing to understand that what they are calling for is not workable in most cases. To me you either make access to healthcare a right (it is absolutely not one right now) and you fully fund it by cutting the hell out of entitlement programs and other areas of government spending or you go back to the free market approach and accept the fact that in life there are some people who are going to be less fortunate than others. It sort of has to be one or the other, if you try something in the middle, it'll be doomed to failure.
He was being attacked from day one and so far none of those attacks have really amounted to anything of substance. That's my point really, all of the nonsense whining will end up giving Trump a pass if they ever stumble on to something legitimate. He'll basically use the lack of credibility from those attacking him as de facto credibility for himself. That's why I'm suggesting that the BS fake scandals stop being pushed. The more of them that pop up only to fade away without evidence, the more likely it will be that if something real pops up that people will simply not care anymore or not believe it. That's exactly how Bill Clinton got away with obstruction of justice and perjury.
So your first paragraph is a non-response. Let me put it in a way that a child can understand, to see if you can keep up. If I have to choose between $95 getting taken from me, and $100 getting taken, those options BOTH suck. By your logic, they are just both bad so I should not support either option? Do you follow me now? Making comparative decisions, even when they are both negative, is essential in a democracy! There are never perfect options. On the bolded part, please re-read my post. I am not taking a position on healthcare in that post, I am presenting you with a hypothetical to illustrate the ridiculousness of not having a preference. What you are doing is attacking the example (a sign of a novice debater, to be sure) and not the argument. Does any of this make a modicum of sense to you? Or am I talking to a brick wall here?
I would agree that is a simplistic way of looking at things. If I was being asked my opinion as to if I wanted to be robbed for 95 bucks or robbed for 100, I would refuse to go along with it because it would be me essentially giving consent to being robbed for 95 bucks and that's not something I want to do. If you are going to rob me, just rob me. Don't expect me to help you out with it. When you have a valid choice to be made that's one thing, but giving credibility to one bad thing over another is not something I choose to do. Do you follow me now? Gotcha. Well to address your argument I would suggest that expressing a "preference" between 2 bad things is absurd in and of itself. Perhaps you should rise up above that type of binary thinking as it would further the conversation. I certainly see what you are trying to say, it's just small minded.
You have to admit for the most part it has been justified and to find out today that he may have leaked classified info to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador yea I can say it without doubt I don't trust him.
Not in the least actually, the last 2 nonsense stories were attempts to bash him for eating ice cream and giving a kid a hat....basically any excuse will do it seems. Also, when it comes to him leaking classified information, that story has already been denied by everyone that was there....so it's looking like that's another fake scandal too. I'm not saying I trust him either, but with all of the fake scandals flying around it does nothing but help Trump in case there are legitimate scandals to be uncovered in the future. The unhinged hatred of those on the left who are super thirsty for a legitimate scandal is absolutely killing any credibility they might otherwise have and doing so could have very bad consequences.
Good lord, I didn't trust him in the 1990's, and he's only gone downhill since then. No, wouldn't trust him with a little league concession stand. [Marvin] SLIME! in the snowcone machine! [/Marvin]
