This week trump managed to generate some controversy by endorsing or encouraging people to buy a KJV Bible with the founding documents of the US added to it. His actions were falsely reported by the MSM, as if the Bible was something he'd put out, which doesn't seem to be the case. But from someone who can't/couldn't quote one verse from the Bible, mislabled 2nd Corinthians, and didn't think he needed to be forgiven this shilling for this Bible seems strange.
Don't get me wrong, more people should own, read, and study the Bible. But coming from Trump it just hits wrong.
So, what's my problem.
First, the KJV and the founding documents are all public domain. Which means that other then manufacturing costs this Bible has a high profit margin.
Second, is pandering to the Lee Greenwood constituency really going to help Trump win?
Third, is playing into the hands of his opponents really going to help Trump win?
This has been one of my problems with Trump for years. He somehow is unable to manage to avoid doing stupid things. As I've said before, I agree with much of Trump's policy ideas, and I believe that he'll be at least somewhat better/less worse than Biden. If he could only stop doing and saying stupid stuff that doesn't help him reach his goal, it would be easier to be more supportive.
I do understand that Biden also does stupid stuff, lies, and looks lost most of the time. Fortunately for Trump, that is an incredibly low bar to clear. Unfortunately for Trump, he seems intent on making it harder than necessary to actually clear that low bar.
I spent last season watching some really bad wide receiver play by the NFL team I follow. All year long, the constant refrain was "Do better.", that's where I am with Trump. "Do better" isn't TDS or hating his, it's a call to reach for a higher standard. It's a hope for something better than what we have now. Isn't better what we hope for from those we care about? Don't we want to see friends and family do better?
39 comments:
Of course we do. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Trump supporter who feels he doesn't need to do better. To me it's a never ending endeavor for everyone. It's the seeking of a perfection we can never attain. By constantly striving to do better, we come closer to that unattainable goal.
The TDS comes in when you make certain to pretend there's little which separates Trump from Biden or Trump from most any other potential Dem candidate. Dems are always a low bar. That's a given. Why belabor the obvious? There's no doubt things will improve under a second Trump presidency. I can't think of any way to argue otherwise. He'll do better without much effort.
I also think it's likely he'll do better than he did the first time, which was quite good despite the imperfections.
I don't know anything about this Bible thing. I'm sure it's much ado about nothing, as so much which concerns some generally is. I'll try to Google it, but a link to a story would be appreciated.
I'm not talking about perfection, I don't expect it nor do I think it's relevant. In trump's case, it's merely demonstrating the self awareness to stop handing his political foes ammunition to use against him. I expect there to be policy differences that the left will bitch about, but why give them this kind of commercial fodder?
I'm not pretending anything. I am saying that simply beating Biden is an incredibly low bar, and I expect better. No hatred, no derangement, no syndrome, no nothing except wondering why he does stupid stuff like this.
Use your Google to find the story, I expect more from you than from Dan. The story should have been nothing. Someone should have been able to say this is a really stupid idea. Somebody should have said, "Think about how this will be spun by the MSM and the left.". But nobody said that, or Trump ignored them and we're going to see ads with Trump Bible video between now and November.
Look, I get it, you are a Trump supporter and you think he'll make everything better. Great. But stop acting like he's incapable of doing stupid stuff, and of making his campaign harder than it has to be. Do you not understand that pointing out stuff that makes Trump look stupid IS trying to support him? That it is NOT bashing him. This isn't about "imperfections" it's about being given a choice between doing something stupid, and not doing something stupid. Then choosing stupid.
" In trump's case, it's merely demonstrating the self awareness to stop handing his political foes ammunition to use against him."
I don't believe it's as big a problem as you so many seem to believe. Instead, when I hear a Trump-hater or Dem attempt to use this "ammunition" you think he supplies them, I feel obligated to put down their stupidity and lies in a manner which will have the best impact on said ammo user. Trump's job is to do what Trump does. To expect him to alter anything to appease those who won't do their own due diligence is absurd. In the meantime, his support seems to be growing despite your concerns. To whatever extent it's not enough is the abject and absolute bullshit attitudes of those who concern themselves with the superficial.
"I'm not pretending anything. I am saying that simply beating Biden is an incredibly low bar, and I expect better. No hatred, no derangement, no syndrome, no nothing except wondering why he does stupid stuff like this."
You keep saying "low bar" and doing so implies that it's low enough for Trump to clear. That's nonsense. The bar is low enough that anyone should have no trouble getting over it. But a more accurate and honest assessment is that Trump has raised the bar, which is why no one competing against him could gain any legit traction in their attempts to gain the GOP nod.
But as to Dems, the height of the bar is of little matter. They don't vote like adults, and thus Trump altering his manner to your taste won't freakin' matter. The same is true of so-called "independents", who are pretentious jackasses for the most part, presuming they're above the fray. How anyone could withhold their vote for Trump based on these minor things which concerns you concerns me to no end. The future of the nation is too important for such crap.
"Use your Google to find the story, I expect more from you than from Dan."
No need to be insulting, especially given how I clearly stated my intention to Google the story...assuming I think it's worth my time to see what has your panties in a twist.
"The story should have been nothing."
I'm quite certain without actually searching it out that it is. How could it be otherwise given your description in your post (where a link would have been a basic public service). That it's more than nothing...assuming it somehow is...is due to the very bullshit of which I speak regarding these truly minor, insignificant and superficial concerns.
"Look, I get it, you are a Trump supporter and you think he'll make everything better."
No. Clearly you don't get it, because you seem to need to believe I'm some rube because I support Trump. The truth is that I'm just an average guy who can see the obvious. I'll spell it out again: Obama sucked and we did not fare well with him in office for eight years. Trump improved our lives in half the time while not being perfect in every little detail. Biden came in and told Obama "Hold my ice cream cone" and proceeded to do more harm to the nation than any president ever did, and gave our enemies a respite in their own efforts to bring us down. I don't "think" Trump will make things better. He can't possibly not. Only fools question this reality.
Here's another point you seem to forget or ignore: Trump seems to always rise above doing what others regard as stupid. This story, based on your description of it, doesn't seem to be "stupid" in the classic sense, if it's "stupid" at all. How is endorsing such a Bible at all "stupid" exactly? I'm not getting it. Just because the MSM will pervert the story doesn't mean Trump's doing anything "stupid". It's nonsense.
Now I have to Google it! And I'll be pissed when doing so will confirm what a waste of time I know it will be.
OK. So I read two articles covering this "nothing burger". One was from FoxNews and the other from some religious site called "Religion News Service" authored by a guy named Tyler Huckabee. I'm pretty sure I've read stuff by this dude before, and he seems quite the leftist, insisting this is the Bible "America deserves"...whatever that's supposed to mean. He also did a Dan by referencing white people.
Anyway, neither of these reports suggest the story was worthy of any concern at all. At the Fox site, commenters worried about the mix of religion and politics, some lamenting Trump might make a buck off of this because he "partnered" with Greenwood. Such bullshit. I suppose no one makes money off of selling Bibles or copies of our founding documents. Somehow it's inappropriate for a politician? This is the kind of thing which arises regardless of what Trump does and to castigate, disparage or criticize Trump for doing what his enemies will exploit is absurd. That's not "support" to warn him off of moving a muscle because of how the left will respond. That's letting the left dictate.
Good for Trump. Good for Greenwood. I hope those who buy this Bible will read it, study it in a truly serious and prayerful manner and learn from it.
"Do better?" Or "Don't be a conman/grifter and use the Bible/God to defend and promote your vulgar indecencies..."?
You can tell a man is a conman by how much he sells his Bible for and how much he uses a sick and angry "god" to scare his marks.
Trump is just being Trump - a vulgar, profane, idiotic, conman/swindler just looking to get rich/gain power off of easily duped marks. I blame Trump much less than I do his defenders.
Don't be marks. Don't be useful idiots.
Strangely enough, virtually everything Trump does is a "nothing burger", and unworthy of any concern. Again, I get it, you're going to minimize anything Trump does because you're committed. For the rest of us, we'd simply like to see a campaign without stupid stuff. I know it's asking a lot that we ignore things that are trending on X for a couple of days, because no one pays any attention to what's trending on X, right?
Yes Dan. I fail to see how expecting all political candidates to do better that to engage in stupid stuff is a problematic statement. The difference is that I'll point out Trump's stupid stuff, while you stay silent on Biden's.
I keep saying that beating Biden is a low bar because it is. Or at least it should be. If Trump can't stop doing stupid stuff long enough to clear the low bar, then it's on him. No one else.
" That it's more than nothing...assuming it somehow is...is due to the very bullshit of which I speak regarding these truly minor, insignificant and superficial concerns."
It should have been nothing, because it shouldn't have happened. Yet it did and we saw this idiotic stupidity all over for a couple of days. The fact that you choose to ignore places where political discourse take place, is fine. But to dismiss what happens on X or FB because you ignore it is something I'd expect from Dan. It's impossible to believe that social media played a huge role in election interference as Trump and his followers do, while simultaneously believing that if something blows up on social media it's "nothing" because the MSM didn't cover it.
"because you seem to need to believe I'm some rube because I support Trump."
When you start with bullshit, I generally tune the rest out.
I may be wrong, but I read something a couple days ago which said Trump didn't set the price of those Bibles, he's just hawking them, which I think is stupid. The publishers who decided to deface the Bible with all that stuff are the real problem. Trump keeps doing stupid stuff and I really wish we had a better candidate but I could never vote for communist Demokrats.
Trump is being outraised by Biden. He is cruising his way to victory this November, taking Texas as a trophy to his landslide victory.
Craig, RE: you comment on March 29, 2024 at 5:48 AM
"Strangely enough, virtually everything Trump does is a "nothing burger", and unworthy of any concern. Again, I get it, you're going to minimize anything Trump does because you're committed."
Strangely enough, it seems anytime I point out how too much is made of the superficial and insignificant with regard to things Trump says or does, I'm accused by you of writing off "EVERYTHING" or "MINIMIZING ANYTHING" he says or does. But the superficial and insignificant should not generate such pear clutching and panty twisting among likely voters, and the fact that it does in an indictment of the people, not Trump. Trump is Trump and does Trump-like things. To pretend that the bullshit is that which should ever weigh heavily in one's voting choices is absurd. Bring me something substantive you dislike and I'll likely dislike it as well...assuming you're presenting it honestly.
But you don't. You're never reacting to his comments and behaviors objectively with an eye toward what another rejection of him means (not "will" mean, but "means") to the state of the nation. Stop it. That's what we have Dan for.
"For the rest of us, we'd simply like to see a campaign without stupid stuff."
No freakin' shit! How often have we ever had campaigns not rife with stupid stuff? Are you really suggesting it started when Trump came down the escalator? It's a sad part of American history that political campaigns wallow in stupidity, falsehoods and distortions. That's why more dedication to staying engaged between elections, as well as honestly assessing actions after due diligence in studying them is the duty of every American. It is also the duty of every American to confront outrage about the insignificant and put it into it's proper perspective for the outraged to consider.
Craig, RE: your comment on March 29, 2024 at 6:49 AM
"I keep saying that beating Biden is a low bar because it is. Or at least it should be."
Trump easily cleared that low bar in 2020. Are you really suggesting he's to blame for having had his second term fraudulently denied him? That's absurd. Who in the hell could possibly pretend Trump wasn't worthy given his great work the first time around? What more could anyone do to convince the stupid to get their heads out of their asses than to have so blatantly outdone "the One" in half as many years?
If Trump refrains for all that you want to label as stupid, how will that change the black hearts of all those who want the freedom to murder their own children in utero? How will that force the stupid to believe the real racism is coming from the Democrat Party? How will that convince morons that Biden is responsible for the increase in crime, the cost of living, the porous border and a host of other unAmerican policies and consequences?
Oh! but Trump endorsing a Bible is too much to overcome!!! WTF!!!
It's not on Trump in the manner you need to believe. It's on those like you who I would think are smart enough to understand what is or isn't important, what does or doesn't indicate important character traits in a president. It's on such people to find just one moron and persuade that moron to dispense with the focus on the insignificant and look to what's been done to us for having done so the last time around.
"The fact that you choose to ignore places where political discourse take place, is fine."
You say this like there are only two places. There are tons of places. That I don't frequent the same places as you means nothing. But given you frequent those you choose to frequent, what are you doing to dissuade those who would make a big deal out of this kind of bullshit...which is true bullshit as opposed to anything I've ever said? Evidently you take the side of those who embrace the insignificant as if it means anything, rather than reminding them of how much better things were when this guy who can say and do stupid things was in office, saying and doing stupid things but still making things so incredibly and blatantly better.
But no, you'll obsess over stupid shit, which is something we've both come to expect from Dan.
Don't fucking compare me to Dan. I don't do anything remotely similar to that moron. Your attitude about Trump is, even if it ain't as moronic.
""Do better?" Or "Don't be a conman/grifter and use the Bible/God to defend and promote your vulgar indecencies..."?"
What "vulgar indecencies" specifically, Dan? Eliminating our border so we can be invaded by who knows what? Invaders who bring drugs which have killed thousands? Invaders who traffic in women and children? Who exploit our dumbass policies to gain entrance and stay indefinitely while never becoming American in any way? Promoting and protecting the murder of hundreds of thousands of people in utero every year? Promoting and protecting the mutilation of disordered kids and adults? Impoverishing Americans by imposing policies which have caused costs to skyrocket across the board? Spending billions to secure the borders of a half dozen countries not named the United States of America? Defending murderers like the Gazans against the most democratic country in the region and a solid ally of ours?
Which indecencies do you mean exactly, liar?
"You can tell a man is a conman by how much he sells his Bible for and how much he uses a sick and angry "god" to scare his marks."
You can tell a fake Christian by how much he accuses a better man of grifting, as if Amazon and Barnes & Noble don't sell Bibles for the same amount and more than Trump/Greenwood does and how he insults God every time someone preaches the Truth about Him. Dan's no Christian. He exploits the word to gain favor of the corrupt in his life.
"Trump is just being Trump - a vulgar, profane, idiotic, conman/swindler just looking to get rich/gain power off of easily duped marks."
Dan's just being Dan - a vulgar, profane, idiotic liar and fake Christian looking to gain the favor of the stupid and corrupt within his circle of influence. I blame Dan for being Dan because only he can pull his own head out of his ass and renounce his moral corruption. He seems not willing.
Don't be a liar, Dan. Don't be a hate-filled fake Christian. Try to be a real one.
Glenn,
My point exactly. The addition of other material to the Bible seems problematic for a Christian (which I doubt Trump is), and his shilling for it comes off like cheap pandering. It's a stupid decision and one that someone should have stopped him from following through on.
"Trump easily cleared that low bar in 2020."
Wow, living in the past. In 202) Trump was more of an unknown and hadn't engaged in things like ballooning the debt and forcing the vaccine on people. Now he's got more baggage, less self control, and more negatives.
"Are you really suggesting he's to blame for having had his second term fraudulently denied him?"
In the absence of any definitive proof that fraud swung enough votes to ensure Biden's victory, I cannot in good conscience say that Trump bears no responsibility for his loss. It's possible/likely that his bad decisions caused enough drop off that the "fraud" was enough. Despite your certainty, and my acknowledging the probability, regarding issues with vote security, I've seen no evidence to back up your claims.
"You say this like there are only two places."
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that you proudly avoid social media, which means that you choose to ignore a significant source of political news/debate. That's your choice, but it is a choice.
"Don't fucking compare me to Dan."
When you act like Dan, I'll compare your actions to Dan's actions.
"Strangely enough, it seems anytime I point out how too much is made of the superficial and insignificant with regard to things Trump says or does, I'm accused by you of writing off "EVERYTHING" or "MINIMIZING ANYTHING" he says or does. But the superficial and insignificant should not generate such pear clutching and panty twisting among likely voters, and the fact that it does in an indictment of the people, not Trump. Trump is Trump and does Trump-like things. To pretend that the bullshit is that which should ever weigh heavily in one's voting choices is absurd. Bring me something substantive you dislike and I'll likely dislike it as well...assuming you're presenting it honestly."
When you literally respond to something that was a significant thing on Twitter, because you couldn't find enough MSM coverage, by dismissing it as a "nothing burger", that's on you. I'm just pointing out that it's your default response to things that make Trump look stupid. There's nothing here but pointing out the obvious and hoping for better. It's amazing that you make it out to be some sinister cabal out to get Trump who never does anything stupid.
"But you don't. You're never reacting to his comments and behaviors objectively with an eye toward what another rejection of him means (not "will" mean, but "means") to the state of the nation. Stop it. That's what we have Dan for."
I'm reacting to his stupid behavior on the campaign trail because we're in the middle of a campaign. He's not president, he's a candidate. His job is to get people to vote for him so that he'll theoretically have the ability to do so much better the second time. It's unfortunate that people vote based on stupid shit candidates do, but it's a reality and you can either bitch about "the stupid voters", or acknowledge that Trump's stupid acts hurt his chances.
"For the rest of us, we'd simply like to see a campaign without stupid stuff."
"No freakin' shit! How often have we ever had campaigns not rife with stupid stuff? Are you really suggesting it started when Trump came down the escalator? It's a sad part of American history that political campaigns wallow in stupidity, falsehoods and distortions. That's why more dedication to staying engaged between elections, as well as honestly assessing actions after due diligence in studying them is the duty of every American. It is also the duty of every American to confront outrage about the insignificant and put it into it's proper perspective for the outraged to consider."
If you agree that Trump shouldn't do stupid stuff, why are you bitching?
"Wow, living in the past. In 202) Trump was more of an unknown and hadn't engaged in things like ballooning the debt and forcing the vaccine on people. Now he's got more baggage, less self control, and more negatives."
Living in the past? Why would anyone want to forget the fraudulent result of that election? Why would anyone think what took place has been resolved to a degree it won't be a problem in November. But it's also relevant in response to your comment about Biden being a low bar. Those who rejected him then had no justifiable reason for doing so, and the more support one has, the harder it is for the other side to cheat to win. Trump won that election. But because of those who rejected him, he's on the ballot again and rightly so given his performance.
The debt has risen for every president since Nixon, as I've proven already, yet, in the same way Dan does, you ignore evidence and repeat the same trope. Nonetheless, I also regard it as a negative of his presidency, as I do his support of the fake vaccine. Yet in spite of those two obvious issues, his presidency was still far better than Obama and Biden and you're still refusing to acknowledge the likelihood that things will improve for us all if he's elected come November.
And aside from those two issues, he has no more baggage than he did before, except for that which has been imposed upon him by this administration and the leftists. Only a TDS sufferer would regard that as "baggage" as if he's got another adulterous episode or was found to like smoking crack or some crap like that. People like YOU are a far greater negative to his winning than Trump has on his own. You're not being honest, you're not being reasonable.
"In the absence of any definitive proof that fraud swung enough votes to ensure Biden's victory, I cannot in good conscience say that Trump bears no responsibility for his loss."
Ah..."definitive proof". How about "objective proof"? How about "hard data"? And you dare compare ME to Dan! Why not just say "there's no evidence" like all the other Trump-hating lefties say? There's plenty of proof which constitutes as compelling an amount and quality of just "circumstantial" evidence of election fraudulence and irregularities that to even suggest Trump did himself in is idiotic. I've got tons of articles saved on this issue which in total cannot be written off as suspect. Just the suppression of the Hunter laptop story was alone enough that as many as 17% of Biden voters would not have voted for Biden. It we take that number against Biden's alleged but highly questionable 81 million vote total, that puts his popular vote way under Trump's, assuming Trump's alleged 74 million was not lower than it would have been had there been a fair election. That's just ONE issue which itself could have swung the election for Biden.
"Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that you proudly avoid social media, which means that you choose to ignore a significant source of political news/debate."
What do you mean "proudly"? Have I been strutting around proclaiming a condescending rejection of social media to which you can cite? I don't think so. Don't know that I've even suggested anything more than I haven't been on Twitter. I don't "avoid" any site or source where political debate takes place. What kind of crap comment is that? And what makes any social site a "significant" source of debate? Numbers? Numbers of whom? Numbers of Einsteins fully informed on the issues, or just average people of varying degrees of knowledge parroting what they hear? Give me a freakin' break! You scraping the barrel here!
"When you act like Dan, I'll compare your actions to Dan's actions."
When I act like Dan, you'll be justified in doing so. Until then, you're not. YOU, on the other hand...
"When you literally respond to something that was a significant thing on Twitter, because you couldn't find enough MSM coverage, by dismissing it as a "nothing burger", that's on you."
Karens going on about it on Twitter doesn't make it significant. I found plenty of MSM coverage on it, and dismissed it because its MSM. I chose two other sources feeling fairly confident I'll get info which is relevant. Unfortunately, one wasn't necessarily. In any case, I've now seen quite enough to confirm the story is a "nothing burger". I happen to like the idea of a politician promoting prayer and Biblical study. Reminds me of Geo. Washington and the founding fathers. I seem to recall Lincoln setting aside a day each year for prayers of Thanksgiving. I guess those guys were stupid, too.
And the Bible itself is still the Bible even with founding documents packaged along with it. I'd love to see Americans study those as well for a change. How stupid to promote the study of Scripture and our founding documents. What the hell was Trump thinking?
" I'm just pointing out that it's your default response to things that make Trump look stupid."
My default response should NOT be to call out those like you who prattle on about insignificant crap as if it's a reason to question Trump's fitness for office...as if it detracts from his worthiness of one's vote...as if it matters against the vile crap we've had to suffer because of similar bullshit in 2020. We suffer because of the petty reactions to insignificant crap. I expect it from lefties. They're freakin' assholes and morons. I expect far better from those who regard themselves as thinking conservative Christians. It makes YOU look stupid!
" It's amazing that you make it out to be some sinister cabal out to get Trump who never does anything stupid."
Keep making shit up, Dan.
"I'm reacting to his stupid behavior on the campaign trail because we're in the middle of a campaign."
First of all, "stupid" behavior is a matter of opinion. Whether it's stupid to any degree of significance is a matter of the intellectual quality of the observer. This particular issue isn't stupid at all. Your response to it is. Promoting prayer, study of Scripture and our founding documents is not stupid at all, even if promoted by a presidential candidate in the middle of a presidential campaign. It's classic American.
"His job is to get people to vote for him so that he'll theoretically have the ability to do so much better the second time."
You see...this is a real problem. It's NOT JUST "his job" to get people to vote for him. It's our job as well if we dare to insist we care about our own families and friends. Do you care? Promote this guy to all who disparage him.
"It's unfortunate that people vote based on stupid shit candidates do, but it's a reality and you can either bitch about "the stupid voters", or acknowledge that Trump's stupid acts hurt his chances."
It's far more unfortunate that people do without presumably smarter people doing nothing to disabuse them of their stupidity in light of all the harm the other party is doing to us all. Rather than sitting on your ass and bitching about Trump doing or saying "stupid stuff", how about manning up to his lefty detractors and challenging them to justify the exploitation of "stupid stuff" for denying Americans a better future? Explain to them why it's moronic to pretend Trump's "stupid" words and actions about which they wet themselves are beneath the concerns of those who posture as intelligent.
"If you agree that Trump shouldn't do stupid stuff, why are you bitching?"
I'm not. I'm bitching about your stupid response to it. I'll continue to bitch with every pathetic recurrence of such. Too much is at stake. How does that saying go? Oh yeah...don't get stuck on stupid.
So, my pointing out that Trump has done one more stupid thing while campaigning gets you this worked up? That you have such thin skin that any criticism of Trump's actions sets you off.
2020 is over, it's in the past, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to fix it. Virtually nothing has been done to prevent a repeat. If you and Trump want to re fight 2020, instead of focus winning 2024 go for it. Or spend the effort on specific things to combat any potential fraud THIS year.
"Ah..."definitive proof". How about "objective proof"? How about "hard data"?"
Give that fact that I've seen all sorts of claims, and stories about the alleged fraud, but not one but of proof, yeah. Why would I put my integrity on the line for something that can't be proven? Dan demands proof of things which can't ever be proven to his satisfaction, or to divert attention from his shortcomings. I'm pointing out that I have seen nothing from anywhere (I see stuff from AZ and GA, then find out that it's not what was claimed. So yeah, I'm not accepting Dan's word for stuff and I'm not accepting yours. If there's smoking gun evidence out there, let's see it. Bear in mind that I'm talking about enough fraud to have swung the election, not the existence of some small fraud somewhere.
"What do you mean "proudly"?"
I mean that you've been quite up front about the fact that you intentionally avoid X and other social media. You always sound like it's some sort of badge of honor.
Do you realize how much like Dan you sound when you dismiss media sources that don't meet your purity test?
Interesting, I've never thought that it was anyone's job but the candidates to get people to vote for them. But, I gotta note that your strategy of bitching about anyone who doesn't agree with you about Trump is at at fault, while Trump's actual behavior doesn't bother you at all. I get it, but my if I'm going to put my integrity on the line for a political candidate, I'd prefer one who values it enough not do stupid stuff.
Do you realize how much like Dan you sound when you dismiss media sources that don't meet your purity test?
The difference being is I'm speaking of actual journalistic outfits with actual journalistic training and credibility while you all are talking about some guy on TwitterX.
Trump, et al, sure has conned you all into believing actual professional journalists can't be trusted while at the same time normalized getting "news" from a jacked up pillow salesman.
Don't buy the con. Don't be a mark or a useful idiot.
Be better.
"So, my pointing out that Trump has done one more stupid thing while campaigning gets you this worked up? That you have such thin skin that any criticism of Trump's actions sets you off."
That's a surprisingly dishonest comment from you given how clear and unambiguous I've been regarding my problem with your "stupid stuff" position. Love him or not, Trump is our candidate for the presidency. Does the left need your help pretending his "stupid stuff" is significant because they don't provide for us a real candidate? It's clear to me that it's the thinness of YOUR skin which has provoked your attacks on me for protesting these nonsensical criticisms of every little thing the guy says. It proves Trump is not his own worst enemy. Too many conservatives are for daring to condescend in such an arrogant manner.
"2020 is over"
Clearly it's not or we wouldn't have to "spend the effort on specific things to combat any potential fraud THIS year." To "put it behind us" is exactly what the cheaters want, rather than to continue reminding voters of what Democrats have done to this country. How much effort have YOU spent?
"Give that fact that I've seen all sorts of claims, and stories about the alleged fraud, but not one but of proof, yeah."
Here I'll use a patented Craig response: Oh...so because YOU haven't seen proof, then no doubt none exists.
Bullshit. There's been plenty. All those claims bring with them evidence. I guess evidence isn't enough for you as it fails to be for Dan.
"Bear in mind that I'm talking about enough fraud to have swung the election, not the existence of some small fraud somewhere."
This is also a bullshit leftist demand. It requires taking each instance of fraud in isolation, ignoring it's the totality of all claims and episodes which is what "swung" the election.
"I mean that you've been quite up front about the fact that you intentionally avoid X and other social media. You always sound like it's some sort of badge of honor."
Wow! You're going to have to provide a quote from me, because I've never said that I've been "avoiding" X. Even stating I've not felt compelled to visit any site or source is not anything close to actively "avoiding". It's just a statement of fact. More detail on that fact is that I've had a presence for years, but again, never felt all that compelled to utilize it. Even after seeing threads and posts presented at other places, and finding them entertaining, I would consider involving myself, but simply never did. You must have had your arm way up your ass to pull this "badge of honor" crap out. How absurd.
"Do you realize how much like Dan you sound when you dismiss media sources that don't meet your purity test? "
Superficially, perhaps. And that might be an argument if I wasn't referring to media sources we both know have histories of less than accurate reportage. Pardon me if I seek out sources of better quality to get better informed. But hey!...if you want to whine about my choices for seeking info to which you could have linked in your post, you go right ahead.
"Interesting, I've never thought that it was anyone's job but the candidates to get people to vote for them."
Yeah...that's why they have a campaign staff. That's why they seek/accept endorsements from other politicians or figures of note.
But how could you not, especially given the many media sources keen on doing all they can to bullshit people to influence them? This is only a self-governing nation...consent of the governed and all. Wouldn't want to burden you with giving a damn about the state of the nation, but even more to the point, if you hear someone talking trash about someone you know, would you do nothing? Would you let them lie, even if the target wasn't a personal favorite? Is that the kind of character you have in mind when deciding for whom you will vote?
"But, I gotta note that your strategy of bitching about anyone who doesn't agree with you about Trump is at at fault, while Trump's actual behavior doesn't bother you at all."
Another dishonest take. My "strategy" has been to defend him against bullshit criticisms, like your charge regarding allegedly stupid stuff, especially when there's nothing at all stupid about things like endorsing a Bible and encouraging prayer, the study of Scripture and our founding documents. But then, I employ that "strategy" anytime I feel someone is being unfairly maligned. If you were to insist Dan shoves vegetables up his ass, I would defend him against such a charge. I don't like Dan, but I don't believe he needs to be victimized by lies. So I'd confront those who do so. Trump doesn't deserve his every imperfection attacked as if he's doing something wrong on purpose, even though what he's doing isn't necessarily wrong. It's clear you don't like when anyone disagrees with you on your low opinion of Trump.
I'm not one to say Trump's behavior is never suspect. I'm simply less inclined to go along with those who want to insist he's guilty of far more than he is, and expect better from conservatives and Christians who aren't any more perfect than he.
Trump hasn't the manners of Emily Post. He isn't a great orator like Patrick Henry or Abraham Lincoln. He's not a great statesman like George Washington. But he doesn't have to be any of those people to still be what he is...well worthy of a second term, whether we deserve him or not. You behavior with regard to these little things doesn't demonstrate integrity. It demonstrates pettiness. Harping on this crap as if he even knows he's running afoul of your high standards, and then giving me crap for presuming you should know better isn't integrity.
"The difference being is I'm speaking of actual journalistic outfits with actual journalistic training and credibility while you all are talking about some guy on TwitterX."
The problem with this biased hunch is that it simply assumes that any "news" from any source can be dismissed without actually determining the accuracy of the story being reported. It also assumes that there is some magic inherent is "journalistic training" that renders those with that magical "training" above anyone else. (As someone with a degree in the field, I've had the training and it's not that magical)
"Trump, et al, sure has conned you all into believing actual professional journalists can't be trusted while at the same time normalized getting "news" from a jacked up pillow salesman."
1. This is simply a false claim with zero evidence to back it up.
2. My personal turning point came about 20 years ago when I saw the reporting on an even that I had attended in person, and found that the reporting completely misrepresented reality.
3. Just recently the NYT (as bastion of all that Dan revers about journalism) did a story on the recent NAR settlement. Starting with the headline, the story was rife with information that was false. The Strib and CNN also reported similar stories rife with falsehoods.
"Don't buy the con. Don't be a mark or a useful idiot."
In other words, listen to Dan, ignore the evidence I see with my own eyes, and trust the MSM.
Be better.
Art,
I stand by the point of this post. Trump shilling Bibles makes him look stupid. It was totally avoidable, as are most of the stupid things Trump does. I expect more from a presidential candidate than doing stupid stuff. I reserve the right to point out that stupid/hypocritical stuff at my leisure/
You do you.
"The problem with this biased hunch is that it simply assumes that any "news" from any source can be dismissed without actually determining the accuracy of the story being reported. It also assumes that there is some magic inherent is "journalistic training" that renders those with that magical "training" above anyone else. (As someone with a degree in the field, I've had the training and it's not that magical)"
I know this was aimed at Dan's comment, but as you lodged a similar complaint against me, I'm going to respond as if it was aimed at me:
Of course you ignore the implication that I'm to assume any and all X posts are somehow automatically on par with cites and sources in which I've good reason to have confidence. I'm not dismissing anything. You simply don't provide and then insist that I'm avoiding. By preferring what I believe has established itself as reliable, it seems logical that with limited time available deferring to such makes the most sense over hoping that a random search for that which you could easily have provided is my best bet. In the meantime, I've long ago established that I do indeed read links provided, and given how those provided by the likes of those like Dan always prove to be time wasters, I do appreciate even those lame attempts as a form of public service. After all, it is at least the appearance of providing evidence of a position.
So it's not a matter of training, but of track record. Just going to dig or wade through X posts isn't an efficient use of my limited time...even if I'm guilty of too often wasting it on my own. That is, I don't need help with that. As a somewhat related aside, you recently offered a link to Wifred Reilly, which didn't result in reading what you said I would find. I tried to find it, but failed to do so, and I was quite interested in answering the challenge which compelled your offering of it. So even with you providing a link to an X thread, it still failed to go right to the specific post you intended for me to see. How much more difficult to be scolded to go and seek out what you reference without even a link which won't get me there?
By the way, I did go to an NBC link after you initial scolding in hopes of finding out other details of the Bible issue. It was a rather cold but straightforward retelling of what I already by that time knew, so nothing was gained. I've little doubt most, if not all, of the many other (and only) leftist offerings on the internet are again, merely rehashing of the same info.
"Trump, et al, sure has conned you all into believing actual professional journalists can't be trusted while at the same time normalized getting "news" from a jacked up pillow salesman."
As Craig rightly reminds, those Dan demands we must trust have proven themselves untrustworthy long before Trump came on the political scene. As I've said before, it's what drove up Rush Limbaugh's popularity which then saw a spread of other conservative talk show hosts providing that which Dan's favored liars ignore or suppress or outright distort. As those like Limbaugh and Mark Levin attest...along with so many others...the MSM is the propaganda arm of the DNC.
"I stand by the point of this post. Trump shilling Bibles makes him look stupid. It was totally avoidable, as are most of the stupid things Trump does. I expect more from a presidential candidate than doing stupid stuff. I reserve the right to point out that stupid/hypocritical stuff at my leisure/"
You might want to add that you're stating your opinion as to the stupidity of that which you find stupid, rather than asserting it like it's a "self-evident" fact. He saw something he wanted to be a part of, because the point is sound and righteous for the betterment of all Americans: Pray, read the Bible, read our founding documents. Nothing at all stupid about it, and I don't give a flying rat's ass if he makes a few bucks at the same time...if he even is. This only "makes him look stupid" to those who see stupidity in things he does.
Obviously there is some overlap between how you and Dan view the media. You both have some curated sources that you trust implicitly and stay as far away from any other sources that you don't.
I differ in a couple of ways. I am obviously aware of the many documented failures of the MSM to report all sorts of things accurately and to slant other things to the left. I'm also aware that many of the alternative news sources do the same. I do use Twitter as a sort of aggregator. I follow all sorts of different people, and then do the research before I post about what I learned. When possible, I will try to use sources Dan can't bitch about when they accurately cover something that goes against his Narrative.
On the other side, I find it hard to consider something like American Thinker as a news outlet. It seems like a good aggregator to use to spur additional research, but not a primary news source. In short, I consume a fairly wide variety of sources based on what I see on Twitter or other media. I also consider the slant when I do.
When I post a Twitter link, I usually do so for the same reason I post links to WK posts. It's because there is an article or video that is easier to post through the Twitter link than otherwise.
Now, in the Bible case, I did see a lot of uproar across the conservative spectrum regarding Trump's stupid choice. That's not news (it's opinion), but when something like that is trending on Twitter, I pay attention. Twitter is the least restrictive of right wing content, therefore reasonably good place to keep up with what's going on. Nothing more, nothing less.
"You might want to add that you're stating your opinion as to the stupidity of that which you find stupid, rather than asserting it like it's a "self-evident" fact."
Obviously stupid can be subjective, yet with Trump he doesn't seem to know or care how stupid he looks. And that's the point. Stupid is in the eye of the beholder, and how many people saw Trump's act and decided not to vote for him? That's what campaigning is, it's attracting the most people as possible to support you, not giving people more reasons to not vote for you. I know you dismiss people who see this crap as "un American" or whatever, but Trump needs those people to vote for him, and to help that happen he needs to adjust his behavior in ways that won't give people reasons to not vote. This isn't some vanity thing where Trump does whatever feels good to him in the moment, with no thought to how it appears to others. He's a polarizing candidate, with a lot against his, and he's choosing stupid.
"He saw something he wanted to be a part of, because the point is sound and righteous for the betterment of all Americans: Pray, read the Bible, read our founding documents."
Well, I'd buy that if those were things he actually did himself. Do what I say, not what I do, is never a good look for a politician. But, it's simply pandering to a slice of his base that will make those folks pee down their legs. Without regard to the rest of the electorate. Trump's rabid base wasn't enough to get him elected in 2020, and pissing off or annoying the voters needed seems like a shitty tactic. Just like constantly badmouthing anyone who isn't 110% in on Trump.
"Nothing at all stupid about it, and I don't give a flying rat's ass if he makes a few bucks at the same time...if he even is. This only "makes him look stupid" to those who see stupidity in things he does."
But you're not the issue. Of course you don't think that shilling for a Bible someone else put together to make some easy money is stupid. You clearly think it's awesome. You just can't seem to grasp that, it'll take more than you and the Trainers, it'll take some of the folks who think he looks like an idiot. It's your/Trump's call, y'all can choose to try to broaden his appeal and increase his support, or y'all can rip everyone who's not in the club. Hint, calling people un American, stupid, idiots, or whatever else you've called me, isn't going to attract those on the bench. But, you do you. It's a forgone conclusion anyway, the fraud wins every time.
I agree Craig in regard to Trump and the Bibles. What a stupid thing to do.
"I'm also aware that many of the alternative news sources do the same."
Really? Which ones? Bias isn't a problem. Inaccuracy and lazy reporting is. Which of the more conservative sources engage in the latter with any regularity at all? It's a sincere question, as the answer will compel deeper scrutiny on my part of such sources.
"On the other side, I find it hard to consider something like American Thinker as a news outlet. It seems like a good aggregator to use to spur additional research, but not a primary news source."
Why not? While it is more opinion piece than news source, the many contributors routinely provide multiple links to more straight news sources to support the point and messages of their articles. Is it a matter of form or something else which inhibits your willingness to rely upon their articles as worthy sources of information?
But as you say, it's not a news source per se. Mostly it's a place for people to bloviate and opine. That's fine. Along with that one will indeed find some links to news sources of some kind. But if every alleged conservative you've read objects to Trump's "hawking" of a Bible in partnership with another celebrity figure, that's just a version of the Bandwagon Fallacy to presume it's actually a stupid thing for him to have done. I get how off putting it is for someone like Trump...and to a lesser extent other politicians, as from among the GOP, few are judged as harshly as Trump routinely is....but that doesn't make it stupid and again, I view anyone encouraging prayer and the study of Scripture and our founding documents to by the complete opposite of "stupid". It's the common view of Trump's character which compels this opinion, not that he's doing it.
"Obviously stupid can be subjective, yet with Trump he doesn't seem to know or care how stupid he looks. "
How many people realize they're being or saying something others will regard as stupid? If one is convicted in one's position/opinion, why should anyone give a flying rat's ass that other people think it's stupid? "Oh! I believe that God is real, but some people think I'm stupid for saying so! I'll just keep it to myself." The notion is absurd. It's a cheap argument against Trump. I'd say it's stupid and you don't seem to know or care.
"Stupid is in the eye of the beholder, and how many people saw Trump's act and decided not to vote for him?"
Well, that's truly stupid and those people clearly don't seem to know or care. In the meantime, the state of the nation hangs on such stupidity. Wonderful.
"I know you dismiss people who see this crap as "un American" or whatever, but Trump needs those people to vote for him, and to help that happen he needs to adjust his behavior in ways that won't give people reasons to not vote."
Yeah, well a great man once said, "You can please some of the people all of time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time" or words to that effect. Clearly you expect Trump to please all of the people all of the time without any expectation that the people get their heads out of their asses and pay attention to that which matters. Got it. At some point these "sophisticated" people need to accept that Trump is Trump and will do Trump things, but what's important is whether those things they find so f**king appalling are truly important. If they do, then thinking themselves wise...
"Well, I'd buy that if those were things he actually did himself."
Is the message valid or isn't it? What difference does it make that he might not be doing them himself, assuming that's actually the case? Do you have some direct line to Melania or something? Pretty damned presumptuous and blatantly a choice to believe the worst about something you only suspect at best. You're clearly focused on rationalizing your bad opinion of him. Not a good look.
"But, it's simply pandering to a slice of his base that will make those folks pee down their legs."
Now you disparage those who support him and those who are compelled by his encouragement. An even better look. Well done.
"Trump's rabid base wasn't enough to get him elected in 2020..."
Only true because those like you are pissing and moaning about crap. And the nation has suffered as a result. Thanks a lot. And yeah, despite your claim to have voted for him, that means little if you're publicly dwelling on bullshit, when we need presumably intelligent and honest people to speak intelligently and honestly about what's important. ALL focus should be on the flaws of the other side, because those flaws have resulted in so much suffering and will continue apace should Trump be denied yet again.
"But you're not the issue. Of course you don't think that shilling for a Bible someone else put together to make some easy money is stupid. You clearly think it's awesome."
But I neither know nor care if he's making bucks on this thing. It doesn't matter and it's not something which should matter to anyone. Do Bible print themselves? Isn't someone making money on all the Bibles being sold at prices as high as $100? Does that make them bad people? Why should anyone disparage Trump, currently a private citizen despite his campaign for the presidency, continue to indulge in any form of business? And if he was invited by Greenwood to "shill" on behalf of this Bible, so what? Again, you're just desperate to find some way to validate your low opinion of the guy and this, in your mind, is a perfect opportunity.
Again, it's not Trump's duty to make sure that every moron who's quick to disparage every fart and burp out of the guy gets turned around. The people have a duty to their nation to know about and focus upon what's important and YOU support those who don't as being just fine in being morons.
The country's in a bad way and Trump is someone who can turn it around because he's freakin' done once before. That's all I need to know given my desire my grandchildren aren't fucked around by those in power now and those like them. You're spewing bullshit just as Dan does.
It's a simple game, as Stacey King likes to say during every Bulls game. One candidate is a proven leader who has done more to benefit the nation than any president since Reagan. The other is Biden. Keep fucking around with insignificant crap and Biden or someone like him will be our president come January '25. It's that simple. Don't be stuck on stupid.
"Is the message valid or isn't it? What difference does it make that he might not be doing them himself, assuming that's actually the case?"
It depends on what the message is, and it's not uncommon for political campaigns to farm out things like social media content to staffers. If Trump does farm out his social media content to others, and that content makes him look stupid, then it's clearly on him for failing to hire the best people and to pay attention to what they are doing.
"Only true because those like you are pissing and moaning about crap."
Clearly I'm not one of Trump's rabid base. Of course that simply makes my point. Trump needs more people than his rabid base to get elected, the fact that he and his rabid base are unaware of that fact is his problem.
"Again, it's not Trump's duty to make sure that every moron who's quick to disparage every fart and burp out of the guy gets turned around."
But it IS his duty as a candidate to campaign in such a way as to attract voters who might be persuaded to vote for him, rather than repel them. Since his rabid base can't get him elected, he has to appeal to some folks outside of that rabid base for votes if he wants to win.
"The people have a duty to their nation to know about and focus upon what's important and YOU support those who don't as being just fine in being morons."
Because it's this attitude, right here, that could very well cost Trump the election. This attitude of, "You're all morons if you don't suck it up and agree with my opinions about what is the most important. If Trump loses then it couldn't be anything but you morons and it couldn't possibly be his fault. Because you're all morons.".
Saying that Trump "can" do something, is not the same as saying that he will, or as saying that De Santis couldn't do as well or better. I guess going back to Trump and his adding 2 trillion/year to the national debt is better than what Biden's adding, so there's that.
" If Trump does farm out his social media content to others, and that content makes him look stupid, then it's clearly on him for failing to hire the best people and to pay attention to what they are doing."
The questions remain: is what is said actually "stupid", or is it just uncomfortable for those who wish someone else was leading the party? To whom is it "stupid"? Everyone, or just those who are predisposed to dislike him or wish him gone in favor of a more "presidential" alternative?
"Trump needs more people than his rabid base to get elected, the fact that he and his rabid base are unaware of that fact is his problem."
What Trump "needs" is fewer people pissing and moaning about crap when so much more hangs in the balance. That's not at all on Trump. That's on those pissing and moaning about crap. Stop doing that.
"But it IS his duty as a candidate to campaign in such a way as to attract voters who might be persuaded to vote for him, rather than repel them."
He did that. He performed very well in his first term and why that isn't enough for those pissing and moaning about crap is an indictment on the character of those pissing and moaning about crap...not on Trump. Stop doing that. That's MY appeal: stop pissing and moaning about crap and focus on how fucked up the nation's become since he was fraudulently denied a second consecutive term. Those pissing and moaning about crap while Americans struggle with the cost of living, crime and all other various and sundry destructive behaviors of the current administration need to think about how pissing and moaning about crap supersedes what truly matters.
"Because it's this attitude, right here, that could very well cost Trump the election. This attitude of, "You're all morons if you don't suck it up and agree with my opinions about what is the most important. If Trump loses then it couldn't be anything but you morons and it couldn't possibly be his fault. Because you're all morons."."
If you want to run with this bullshit, then explain to me how all about which you're pissing and moaning must take precedence over what truly threatens us. I'll wait here while you don't because clearly your more interested in maligning my intentions then you are focusing on what matters. The crap about which so many are pissing and moaning isn't a matter of me failing to acquire agreement. It's about their stupidity in focusing on that which doesn't matter when the nation around us turns to shit. Rather than pretend to care, grab one of those pissing and moaning and set them straight. Can you do that? Are you going to abdicate your responsibility to your family and pretend it's up to Trump to please every freaking individual who comes up with bullshit reasons to withhold their support over the current asshole in the White House and his crew?
"I guess going back to Trump and his adding 2 trillion/year to the national debt is better than what Biden's adding, so there's that."
OK, Hakeem Jeffries: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2023-05-18/fact-focus-whos-to-blame-for-the-national-debt-its-more-complicated-than-one-culprit
Given the debt problem is all upon which you have to hang your hat, and given the reality of the spending as the status quo, and given the fact that his "promise" wasn't intended to be kept within a mere four years:
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-national-debt-promise-biden-mccarthy-1803344
So I think it's high time you shit can that criticism.
"The questions remain: is what is said actually "stupid", or is it just uncomfortable for those who wish someone else was leading the party? To whom is it "stupid"? Everyone, or just those who are predisposed to dislike him or wish him gone in favor of a more "presidential" alternative?"
The question seems to really be, isn't it stupid to take the very real risk of driving away potential voters in an election where Trump will need everyone who's even remotely conservative (and then some) to vote for him? Isn't it stupid to do things that swing voters will likely use as reasons to not vote?
"What Trump "needs" is fewer people pissing and moaning about crap when so much more hangs in the balance. That's not at all on Trump. That's on those pissing and moaning about crap. Stop doing that."
Yeah, because historically we've done such a great job of ignoring the liabilities of our presidential candidates because other people demand that we do so. Heaven forbid that Trump be criticized or disagreed with. In all honesty, Dan's (as a representation of those who hate Trump) attitude about Trump is pushing me to vote for Trump, while your constant insistence that anyone who disagrees with you about Trump is a "moron", "hates America" or the like is pushing me away from voting for him. Actions have consequences, you and Trump should probably get a grasp on that concept.
"He did that."
That was in 2015/16 when he was a political novelty. This is 2024, things are different now, and Trump has more baggage.
"an indictment on the character of those pissing and moaning about crap...not on Trump. Stop doing that."
This notion that trump isn't responsible for his action or for what he says is absurd. The notion that everyone needs to simply shut up and get in lockstep is not persuasive in the least. I can say this with 100% certainty, If I do not vote for Trump it'll be because of the things he's done and said, and months of listening to bullshit like this. Serously, if all you have is calling people "morons" and telling them that they "hate America", then good luck.
"That's MY appeal: stop pissing and moaning about crap and focus on how fucked up the nation's become since he was fraudulently denied a second consecutive term. Those pissing and moaning about crap while Americans struggle with the cost of living, crime and all other various and sundry destructive behaviors of the current administration need to think about how pissing and moaning about crap supersedes what truly matters."
Again, blaming people who (in my case) voted for Trump for his failures to win doesn't seem like a winning strategy. But if you think it works, then have at it.
"If you want to run with this bullshit, then explain to me how all about which you're pissing and moaning must take precedence over what truly threatens us."
1. My blog, my rules, my topics. You bitching about this is only going to result in more of this content. That's on you.
2. It's kind of amusing to see you acting like berating and bitching are actually good persuasive tactics.
3. My point (not that it matters) is that Trump would be a monumentally BETTER candidate if he'd simply stop doing and saying stupid crap.
4. His abortion position is likely to cost him votes. I'd have expected him to pander, but he chose to take a relatively clear position. I respect him for taking a position that's likely to cost him votes on a serious, important issue.
5. On the other hand, his pandering with the bible thing is a ridiculous waste of time. It will also likely cost him votes, over something of no substance, and won't stop the alienation of the pro-life Christians.
6. The notion that Trump is above criticism, or that it's unpatriotic to want Trump to be better, seems more un American than legitimately criticizing Trump.
"OK, Hakeem Jeffries: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2023-05-18/fact-focus-whos-to-blame-for-the-national-debt-its-more-complicated-than-one-culprit"
Then maybe Trump shouldn't have made a promise to do something about a problem over which he has no control. My issue isn't necessarily that the debt rose, it's that he did nothing (even symbolically) to even try to stop spending increases. Even if his policies brought in more revenue, it's always been spending that is the problem.
"Given the debt problem is all upon which you have to hang your hat, and given the reality of the spending as the status quo, and given the fact that his "promise" wasn't intended to be kept within a mere four years:"
1. The debt problem isn't "all I have...". It's one issue that is clear, obvious, a direct breaking of his campaign promise, and one that I thought was a primary concern of yours.
2. Surrendering to the tax and spend status quo, isn't a good look for conservatives.
3. That's quite a leap. A second term insn't promised.
4. The notion that a president can preside over huge increases is the deficit, debt, and spending in their first term, then magically fix all of those things in their second seems unrealistic at best.
5. Trump's budgets didn't cut spending and his policies never resulted in the growth he predicted. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-12/column-trump-once-vowed-to-wipe-out-the-federal-deficit-now-hes-just-pretending
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-national-debt-promise-biden-mccarthy-1803344
The Newsweek article doesn't seem to help your case. The notion that Trump promised to "eliminate the debt", but instead added materially to it is hardly a win for Trump. I'd argue that his problem was to make a promise that (as you note earlier) is beyond his ability to keep.
"So I think it's high time you shit can that criticism."
Well, if you say so, then I guess I'll just accept increases in spending, deficits, and the debt as par for the course.
As I've also said before, and you seem to ignore. Trump's silence on this issue is part of his problem as well. He's NOT campaigning on any plan to fix his mistakes, he's (like you) simply assuming that he'll do something radically different this time.
It Trump can't be assigned responsibility for the massive increases in spending, the deficit, and the debt. If Trumps budgets which didn't materially cut spending, are off limits from criticism. If Trump isn't responsible because he doesn't have the power to fix it. That's great, now hold every other president to the same standard.
"Are you going to abdicate your responsibility to your family and pretend it's up to Trump to please every freaking individual who comes up with bullshit reasons to withhold their support over the current asshole in the White House and his crew?"
This is exactly my point. This sort of bullshit isn't going to persuade anyone. If I was really worried about my family, I'd be giving more thought to going off the grid and checking out than I already am. It's NOT my job to blindly support any candidate regardless of their actions or the actions of their supporters. Trump will be "better" than the current shitty president isn't much of a persuasive argument. Guilt trips didn't work for my mother-in-law, and they won't work here.
If the vaunted US political system as so awesome, then how are we forced to choose the lesser of two evils over and over again?
Post a Comment