Art has decided to go through all of my posts on Trump and to assess them from his extremely pro Trump position. Which is fine, and I'm not wasting my time with his posts.
I will point out that to limit one's view on what I've said about Trump only to the posts I've written on my blog, seems to exclude much of what I've said about Trump.
Dan's done this as well. He'll try to pretend that the only measure of my output on a given topic is posts specifically written about that topic.
5 comments:
Your position here ignores how it all came about. You insisted that you've expressed support for or gave credit to Trump for good things he's done. I stated, basically, that I've seen no posts from you which did this. I then suggested I might wade through all posts during Trump's presidency to seek out such posts and I believe you told me, in not so many words, "feel free".
Perhaps a post from you summarizing all such policies might at least support the claim. Maybe even explain why you liked the policy.
So again, I was actually asking for specific posts, and in reading a great deal of comments...even from posts that only suggested Trump might come up in the conversation...I've failed to find any of this support beyond what I've highlighted could be regarded as such. Thus, I'm limiting based on what I said I would do. Where else might I find this positive regard for a Trump policy or action? I'm not saying there isn't any, but that I've never seen it in any of the discussion of which I've been a part or have reviewed.
And that's perfectly fine...except that you often state that you give him props when he does good stuff as well as criticize when he does bad stuff. I simply haven't seen the former while constantly being reminded of how character matters.
Perhaps I need to also scan all your Facebook entries as well?
By the way, I think I've been quite fair in my reviews of your blog posts and comments therein. Don't be afraid. Have a look.
Art,
You're doing exactly what I wrote about (and one of Dan's favorite tactics). You're artificially limiting your search to post I've written and how they measure up to your standards about how Trump should be written about. As if, somehow, only posts count more than comments.
If you want to continue with the exercise, feel free. But, I'm not playing. The problem is that I have the temerity to point out specific areas where I think Trump has failed, and that I believe those areas are important.
For example, I've seen talk that trump wants to impose a 10% tariff on everything imported into the US. As we know with any "corporate tax" the tax increase is always passed on to the customer. In effect, Trump seems to be pushing for an additional increase on prices after the massive inflation of the past 4 years.
At this point, I don't see how this improves the US economy. Certainly not in the short term. It could be argued that this might push companies to do more in the US, but they'll still be paying the tariffs on the raw materials that need to be imported. Again, theoretically, US oil production could be ramped up over a period of months or years to replace much of the oil we import. Yet we'd still see a 10% increase in gas prices which are already much too high.
This also assumes that this tariff increase would not spark a similar or larger increase from our trading partners.
ON a philosophical level, if low taxes are good for the economy, then why would Trump advocate raising what is essentially a tax on everything we import?
Once again, you're the one who said you've praised him for some things while criticizing him for other things. I stated I hadn't seen any posts on your blog which suggested any praise and that I would scan all of them during the time of his presidency to see if any such posts existed. Thus, I framed my intention specifically with no suggestion that it would negate other possible forums where this alleged praise might have taken place.
I could say that this perusal of your blog was the start of a more exhaustive search for such praise, but I'm not sure I'm up for any deeper investigation, when you could easily link to such place.
As to his alleged plan to place a tariff on anything, I haven't seen or heard it and will have to investigate since you chose not to post a link. I'm not a fan of tariffs but I believe his tariffs on China was a burden for them in the end. so targeted tariffs might be tolerable. But again, I'll need to check it out before I comment on it.
In the meantime, when I get through this last year of Trump's time, I intend to address the argument for Trump issue. BTW, I don't know if you saw my email yet, but to summarize, I'm familiar with Wilfred Reilly, as I've seen him on Fox many times. Like the guy. I went to the link you provided and it took me to his Twitter, but the most recent date I saw there was 2022. Regardless, where it took me provided no evidence of the challenge, so I will make my case in another blog post at my blog soon. I jumped on Twitter some time ago but never really used it. As a result, when I go there, and am prompted to log in or sign up, I run into difficulties, as I did with your link. Don't know why.
What an interesting response. You specifically limit yourself to evaluating my posts, conclude that they don't meet your standard for praising Trump, then conclude that that's all the evidence you need. You don't "exclude" what I've said in thousands of comments over multiple blogs, you just don't take it into account. Much like Dan, you limit what counts only to posts.
FYI, since a quick Google search led me to multiple sources for the Trump tariff plan, I didn't see the need to post a link.
https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-is-primed-for-a-trade-war-in-a-second-term-calling-for-eye-for-eye-tariffs-aff5bec5
https://taxfoundation.org/blog/donald-trump-10-percent-tariff/
I'm going to point something out. I've focused on several areas of policy or campaign promises where Trump was less than successful (deficit/debt, COVID, hiring "the best", infrastructure, draining the swamp, lack of detailed plans to fix his mistakes/acknowledging that he made mistakes), yet I haven't seen you actually do much beyond criticize my desire that Trump act like an adult. I can't help but wonder why that is.
While I'm at it, Trump just claimed that "Russia" "defeated Hitler". While the USSR's part in the allied effort was important, certainly wasn't the USSR alone that "defeated Hitler". The USSR didn't have the industrial capacity to do so alone, and was dependent on US lend lease to support their war effort. Stalin spent significant time whining that the USSR needed a second front (the rest of the Allies managed 2) in order to draw troops away from the eastern front. The USSR started the war as an ally of Germany, and enabled Hitler to his early success. The USSR spent significant effort in spying on the Manhattan Project and other aspects of the allies efforts. The USSR contributed virtually zero to any other theater of war other than removing the Germans from their territory, and conquering/enslaving eastern Europe.
There seem to be only a couple of options.
1. Trump is ignorant of the history of one of the pivotal events of the 20th century.
2. Trump was unable or too lazy to speak accurately.
3. Trump was making a joke, and we shouldn't pay any attention to it.
I still think that the fact that you are convinced that I "hate" Trump, while Dan is convinced that I support Trump 100%, tells me that I might be a a pretty good place.
Post a Comment