You offer fair criticism of Trump? You must be kidding
Alt-righter plows into crowd of anti-racists in Charlottesville
- Thread starter Town Heretic
- Start date
You can't say anything good about Trump, it's just not in you.
Completely agree. Even when I want to pull my or his hair out on a point.He's a good egg. Kmo too.
:cheers:
It's not a thing that's "in" someone, PJ. It's about who a person is and how he presents. I didn't have anything good to say about either candidate for either party. I didn't want either of them to win because I thought they lacked character, were the worst sort of politics as usual, lately. All playground rhetoric and misdirection. From tax returns to Twitter he's done nothing to change my mind on the count.
It's not about what's in me. It's about what's coming out of him.
Who could offer criticism and you think it fair, PJ. But thank you for underlining my point while not producing anyone leveling any criticism that you found worthy.
I've said plenty of bad things about Trump, and I have agreed with fair criticism. I think you hold him to too high of a standard. You expect too much, you expect a polished politician. Try acting like you like him for a day and you might see some redeeming qualities in him. As it is, you are overzealous and unfair in your constant bad mouthing of Trump, by constant, I mean any chance you get. I saw it before the election too, you were easier on crooked Hillary
Indeed. My dislike for Trump started when he treated his FIRST wife so shabbily. Then the comments he made about women, Mexicans, Blacks, the disabled. His fanning the flames of violence, willingness to defame, slander and right out lie (birtherism) ............... and
RUSSIA.
Everyone knows he colluded with Russia, but because he is their guy, they don't care. Also, his motive for running was never about America, but rather about sticking it to Obama. He is such a lowdown snake, he is willing to promote the death of Americans by sabotaging the ACA. He is a bullying sniveler and an embarrassment to our country.
Next time, I will try to be more forthcoming in how I view Putin's choice for POTUS.
Name two.
Who gets to decide what constitutes fair criticism?
No, it's not about polish, though it is about maturity, which has a way of reflecting on your point. And it's about character. I find him deficient in both particulars. In that he's not the first to be lacking. Sometimes a man missing one or both can even manage to do a good job in the particulars of the office. Typically, there's another quality or several that in sum overcome the important wants. Clinton comes to mind. The president should either embody our best in aspiration and appearance or in substance. Some have done one or the other. Few have had both in them. Eisenhower came close. Reagan too.
When he won I hoped for him, if only for us. I believe his problem is his age and position. He's attempting to run the country the way he ran his empire, because that's his model for success and how he likes to approach life. It doesn't translate well to public service.
No, I could write about him daily. He really is that Pez dispenser of goofery. The fact is that I don't hate Trump, don't have a vendetta against him, and don't take every chance I can to go after him. I'm just saddened that he's occupying the office in a time when I think more than ever we require strong moral character from the office, someone who can speak to every American and give them a sense of destiny that isn't predicated on defeating his neighbor. I think Reagan did that. I think Bill did it too. And the country responded, even if the parties hated and sniped after them...I think his message is of the wrong time, negative, divisive, and wrong headed.
That's just what you tell yourself to justify the rest, PJ. The unassailable fact in evidence is that I did my best to get people to refrain from supporting either and, as I said then, for about the same reason.
And by the way, the president's second effort in Texas? Nicely done.
Foxfire
Well-known member
He read the prompter well and without going too far off script? :chuckle:
Alright now. :chuckle:
No, I thought he did well this time around. He handed out supplies, served food to the hungry, comforted a few kids and made himself visible to people who could use the encouragement. It was a pleasant surprise. I'm not going to kick him when he gets it right.
He did what he should have done, what I'd expect a president to do. More of that, please.
Everyone voted it to be me.
Trump didn't need to 'show up' in TEXAS.
It was a mess and in chaos.
Trump had already been on the phone with Governor Abbot and assured him that anything TEXAS needed they would get.
But the media would have ripped Trump to shreds if he had not shown up.
Trump made the trip short and sweet, as to not take any more time and attention away from the rescues.
Kudos to Trump.
It was a mess and in chaos.
Trump had already been on the phone with Governor Abbot and assured him that anything TEXAS needed they would get.
But the media would have ripped Trump to shreds if he had not shown up.
Trump made the trip short and sweet, as to not take any more time and attention away from the rescues.
Kudos to Trump.
So obviously, it's going to be stupid. Of course, of course. Because wrong-think obviously is solely because of stupidity, not for any other reason.
I will admit that I joined this party late.
But fine, let's stick to your original assertion:
There is no moral equivalence between peaceful nazis and peaceful protestors?
Upon what basis are you making this claim? I could supply you with any number of non-violent persons who hold to ideologies that are apparently consistent with, or otherwise endorse, violence.
The "punch a nazi" memes have been making their way on various social media, even by, I am sure, some people who have not themselves committed any acts of violence.
There are almost 2 billion muslims in the world, most of whom are not violence, even though their religion most certainly is not, pace George W. Bush, "a religion of peace."
Furthermore, Richard Spencer and the alt-right, so far as I'm aware, don't endorse violence at all. It is certainly true that the alt-right (who are not actually nazis) are in favor of a white ethnostate, but how is that qualitatively different from zionists who are in favor of a Jewish ethnostate (which actually exists, and which is actually violating international law and oppressing Palestinians, unlike the desired white ethnostate, which doesn't actually exist and oppresses nobody).
What precisely is it about these "most peace loving nazis" that somehow distinguishes them from other groups? Because they are "racist"? Ok. Then were you singing this tune when BLM activists on college campuses were demanding segregated dormitories? How about when identitarian leftists have been pushing a narrative that only white people can be racist? How about when a BLM activist refused to sell a white person a t-shirt solely because of the color of his skin? How about when an entire chapter of the BLM refused to allow white people to attend their meetings (though still encouraged them to donate money)?
White identitarianism is simply the logical conclusion of the left-wing identity politics and the demonization of and outright racism against white people that has become rampant in this country in the last few years.
Why do so-called Nazis deserve our distinctive moral outrage, but not the Black Panthers (which Dr. Cornell West, to his credit, opted not to join, due to his Christian beliefs)?
The simple fact is that, however much you may dislike the ideas of Richard Spencer, his ideas are much more peaceful than many of his identitarian leftist counter-parts. I don't remember you raising an objection when minorities demanded a safe space. Why do you now object when white people demand one?
All. That's why they use the black/red flag. It's not just a phenomenon in the United States. It's a phenomenon (and a real problem/scourge) in Europe as well.
A counter-protestor was discharging a makeshift flamethrower at right-wing protestors at Charlottesville, and the media feigned outrage when a right-wing protestor dared to fire a warning shot at him.
Please, tell me about this "fascism" and why the alt-right (who neither generally are violent nor endorse violence), et al. deserves more disdain than the far-left extremists (who actually are violent) and their left-wing apologists (who endorse, or at least, defend the violence). :nono:
"Gentler"?
But you must be joking!
Because, apparently, wanton rioting, vandalism and arson are "gentler"!
Why on earth should that be the sole criterion? "Yes, I understand that these people are in favor of extrajudicial violence and political terrorism AND ACTUALLY COMMIT SUCH VIOLENCE, but THESE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE MINORITIES! They don't actually advocate violence against them, but they would much rather prefer to live without them than with them. So they are AUTOMATICALLY worse than the people calling for extrajudicial violence!"
Are you listening to yourself right now? :nono:
ClimateSanity
New member
What is " in" a person is a set of attitudes. You have an attitude inside you that refuses to see anything good at all in Trump.
You say it's about who a person is and how he presents. How is it me and PJ see a fantastic president and you see a man with huge personal faults? We all have faults and you think his are worse than yours. I might go further and say you think his faults are of the same magnitude as mine and that your faults are miniscule in comparison. The Bible has something to say about an attitude like that .
Nostradamus called. He said not to quit your day job . :nono:
That's a question you need to ask yourself and consider, given I can and have noted the particular illustrations of that. How you resist the understanding rooted in his words and actions is something that should give you pause.
I don't believe I've ever compared myself to him, and I never ran for president of the United States either.
You might say there was an American culture that existed until 1965, when a change in immigration law did away with what essentially reduced to racial discrimination, then literally run away from defining what you mean by that culture and what that shift from it entailed when challenged on making vaguely racist comments. And by might I mean that's exactly what you did.
Or, you just say whatever suits that trunk full of emotional issues you have and you never seem able to back any of it. Let's see the next one.
What does the Bible say about straw men?
Last edited:
Great Post
And therein lies part of the problem. He did what was *expected*. IF he gives a decent speech and doesn't do anything stupid for a day, apparently we are suppose to high five him for doing *** GASP *** what ALL other presidents have done naturally. One good speech does not erase his collusion with Russia to get elected. Nor does it erase all of the nasty statements and policies he is trying to put into effect. He is being treated as he *deserves* to be treated for intentionally trying to tear our country apart.