Boss of National Enquirer given immunity for testimony:

[Revoltingest]

His tax reform may end up being a good thing. His tariffs have been rather ineffective to negative so far. Though amazing incompetence may amazingly end up in our trade partners caving, but I do not see that happening with China.

And it looks like the hopes for North Korea were overblown. The winner of the meetings so far has been North Korea. They got recognized and treated as a real country and did not have to give up anything.

There's the thing....it shouldn't be about liking or hating Trump.
It should be about judging each policy, then favor or oppose it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ha! No rose colored glasses here. But seriously, Hillary as more corrupt and incompetent than Trump? Haha.

To you, perhaps?
But those are traits which are subordinate to her record as a predictor of what she'd effect in office.
Her record is bad...supporting both wars, even starting the one in Iraq.
Trump, while unappealing, at least had the potential for a more peaceful presidency.

Hillary, who’s endured countless investigations without anything turning up. Hillary, who has a solid record of service, though not without its spots.

"Spots", but nothing turned up?
That seems quite contradictory.

Compared to Trump. Who has left a trail of bankrupted and failed businesses— including a casino for Christ’s sake. Who has a trail of fraud and other charges, usually settled.

But he'd never voted to start or continue needless spendy deadly wars.

As for “war monger”, you conjured up that.....

No, I checked her congressional voting record.
Conjured indeed.....piffle.

Here's the big problem I see.
You & yours can understand voting for Hillary, but you're astonished
that anyone finds Trump less evil. No understanding of why.
My advantage is not being emotionally invested in my vote, ie,
I can see your side too....I just disagree with your judgment.

 

[Revoltingest]

He nominated the guy he thought will be most likely to rule in his favour if his case ever reaches the Supreme Court. That is all.

Oh, my....what a simple view of things.
No evaluation of the nominee....just another conspiracy theory.

 

[tytlyf]

There's the thing....it shouldn't be about liking or hating Trump.
It should be about judging each policy, then favor or oppose it.

How about Tax policy?
90% of the benefits go to the 1%, the crumbs get spread to the 99%.
You support that yes?

Environment policy?
Trade policy?
Foreign policy?

Where do you want to start? To be fair, Donald doesn't have much control over these. The republican establishment calls the shots on most things.

 

[ecco]

But Hillary has an extensive record supporting war.

She voted for Iraq. This was a big mistake, but was based in some part on the avowal by the Secretary of Defense that Saddam had WMD. What other "extensive record supporting war" does she have?

 

[Revoltingest]

How about Tax policy?
90% of the benefits go to the 1%, the crumbs get spread to the 99%.
You support that yes?

Environment policy?
Trade policy?
Foreign policy?

Where do you want to start? To be fair, Donald doesn't have much control over these. The republican establishment calls the shots on most things.

Bless your heart.

 

[Revoltingest]

She voted for Iraq. This was a big mistake, but was based in some part on the avowal by the Secretary of Defense that Saddam had WMD. What other "extensive record supporting war" does she have?

I knew the war wasn't worth it, even with the assumption of WMDs.
The problem isn't her mistakes....it's her willful desire to police the
world using violence & vast sums of money without regard for long
term adverse consequences to Americastan.

Politicians must make decisions regularly. Some will be good, & some
will be mistakes. The question: What kind of mistakes are they prone
to committing? What will be the likely consequences? The Hillary
problem isn't that she made a mistake starting & supporting these wars.
It's that she favors policies which result in starting & supporting such wars.

 

[BSM1]

Bless your heart.

Glad to see some of my Southernness taking root.

 

[BSM1]

She voted for Iraq. This was a big mistake, but was based in some part on the avowal by the Secretary of Defense that Saddam had WMD. What other "extensive record supporting war" does she have?

Libya, et al

 

[Revoltingest]

Glad to see some of my Southernness taking root.

Blame @4consideration.
She is the most evilest corrupting influence on the forum.

 

[Falvlun]

"Spots", but nothing turned up?That seems quite contradictory.

The investigations never turned up any of the accusations they were investigating.

That doesn’t mean Clinton was perfect. She made mistakes. I doubt you’d find a person who hasn’t. Mistakes does not equate to “incompetent and corrupt”. And if that is your criteria, then I can’t see how it was a distinguishing factor between Trump and Hillary.

But he'd never voted to start or continue needless spendy deadly wars.

No, I checked her congressional voting record.
Conjured indeed.....piffle.

I think you’ve way overblown the threat of Hillary, while downplaying the serious concerns Trump brought to the table, but I think I mostly object to your characterization. Call Clinton hawkish, ok, sure.

But War Monger? That’s a bogey man.

 

[Revoltingest]

That doesn’t mean Clinton was perfect. She made mistakes. I doubt you’d find a person who hasn’t. Mistakes does not equate to “incompetent and corrupt”. And if that is your criteria, then I can’t see how it was a distinguishing factor between Trump and Hillary.

I see what you're doing here....trying to "trigger" me by using a plural, "criteria",
when the singular, "criterion" is appropriate. Well, I've recovered from the
paroxysm that you caused.
My primary objections to Hillary are: war mongery, big government, authoritarianism
Corruption & incompetence are secondary.

I think you’ve way overblown the threat of Hillary, while downplaying the serious concerns Trump brought to the table, but I think I mostly object to your characterization. Call Clinton hawkish, ok, sure.

But War Monger? That’s a bogey man.

In Congress....
She voted to start & continue the Iraq war.
She voted to continue the Afghan war.
There's more, but those are the most significant.
To you, these are a mere boogie man?
We have very different values.

I've voiced concern for & criticism about Trump.
You just haven't noticed this.
And lately, you've been noticing things which aren't even there.
(On that other thread.)
I recommend eschewing rash pronouncements about others.

 

[Falvlun]

I see what you're doing here....trying to "trigger" me by using a plural, "criteria",
when the singular, "criterion" is appropriate. Well, I've recovered from the
paroxysm that caused.

Deepest apologies!

My primary objections to Hillary are: war mongery, big government, authoritarianism
Corruption & incompetence are secondary.

Big government and to a lesser extent authoritarianism (I think both parties have this issue) are Democrat party characteristics, not particularly personal to Hillary herself.

It seems then, that a Republican (or libertarian) candidate would automatically be better in your opinion, simply due to the (R) next to their name. I mean, it makes sense, not blaming you, just making the distinction.

However, I think Trump was a shocking example of just how far such thinking would go, when an incompetent, ignorant, train wreck could win, just because he had that magical (R).

In Congress....
She voted to start & continue the Iraq war.
She voted to continue the Afghan war.
There's more, but those are the most significant.
To you, these are a mere boogie man?
We have very different values

Maybe just different vocabulary. A War Monger seems to me to be someone who goes out of their way looking for wars specifically and then revels in them. That doesn’t seem to describe Hillary’s record. Like I said, hawkish, sure.

It’s like calling a house cat who bit you a man eating lion. Superficial resemblance, sure, but the latter is meant to evoke a threat much greater than the one that actually exists.

I've voiced concern for & criticism about Trump.
You just haven't noticed this.

I know you have. But I was talking about this topic specifically. Have you criticized Trump for his seeming exuberance for foreign adventurism? Did his comments about going after terrorist families give you cause for concern? What about his keen interest in using nuclear weapons? I don’t know.

And lately, you've been noticing things which aren't even there.
(On that other thread.)
I recommend eschewing rash pronouncements about others.

Pronouncements like “You’ve Been noticing things which aren’t there?”

If you have something to say about another topic, please join in the conversation. Otherwise, vague attacks are rather low.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems then, that a Republican (or libertarian) candidate would automatically be better in your opinion.....

Au contraire!
Certainly, the libertarian would be better.
But Republicans aren't less authoritarian than Democrats.
One must look at the individual.
Remember that I voted for McGovern (Dem) against Nixon (Pub) back in the day.

However, I think Trump was a shocking example of just how far such thinking would go, when an incompetent, ignorant, train wreck could win, just because he had that magical (R).

I've given reasons which were based upon the individuals, not the parties.

Maybe just different vocabulary. A War Monger seems to me to be someone who goes out of their way looking for wars specifically and then revels in them. That doesn’t seem to describe Hillary’s record. Like I said, hawkish, sure.

The terms aren't precise.
Calling her a "hawk" works too.
But she's done more than advocate for war....she played a leadership role in starting & continuing them.

It’s like calling a house cat who bit you a man eating lion. Superficial resemblance, sure, but the latter is meant to evoke a threat much greater than the one that actually exists.

Don't make me start using analogies too.

I know you have. But I was talking about this topic specifically. Have you criticized Trump for his seeming exuberance for foreign adventurism?

I have, in multiple foreign policy areas....Israel, N Korea, Iran.

Pronouncements like “You’ve Been noticing things which aren’t there?”

Your claim that I predicted "no throttling" with the repeal of net neutrality....
It's invented & unsupported.

If you have something to say about another topic, please join in the conversation. Otherwise, vague attacks are rather low.

I was very specific about this on the other thread.
It's very bad form to misrepresent another poster's views.
And this is especially so given the other partisan posters
present who latch onto the error, & continue the mischief.
As you see, it inspires me to be even more of a jerk.

 

[Falvlun]

Au contraire!
Certainly, the libertarian would be better.
But Republicans aren't less authoritarian than Democrats.
One must look at the individual.
Remember that I voted for McGovern (Dem) against Nixon (Pub) back in the day.

I've given reasons which were based upon the individuals, not the parties.

The terms aren't precise.
Calling her a "hawk" works too.
But she's done more than advocate for war....she played a leadership role in starting & continuing them.

Don't make me start using analogies too.

I have, in multiple foreign policy areas....Israel, N Korea, Iran.

This really is too much a matter of opinion to continue. You can keep your man-eating lion.

Your claim that I predicted "no throttling" with the repeal of net neutrality....
It's invented & unsupported.

I was very specific about this on the other thread.
It's very bad form to misrepresent another poster's views.
And this is especially so given the other partisan posters
present who latch onto the error, & continue the mischief.
As you see, it inspires me to be even more of a jerk.

I would appreciate if you kept your misrepresentations of me within the appropriate thread.

But really, if you spent less time criticizing how people post and simple say “yo Falv, you’re wrong about me, here’s what I actually believe” then you might get misrepresented less often. For example, I appreciated your clarification on Trump’s foreign adventurism.

 

[Revoltingest]

But really, if you spent less time criticizing how people post and simple say “yo Falv, you’re wrong about me, here’s what I actually believe” then you might get misrepresented less often. For example, I appreciated your clarification on Trump’s foreign adventurism.

If I'd just given you the clarification you wanted, you wouldn't
have learned the lesson to eschew making careless claims about
the views of another, & then launching into criticism thereof.
But by driving the lesson home by pointing out the error, requiring
evidence, & letting you do the work, it will be remembered.
(I'm aware that some find my style of teaching to be annoying.)

Also, one annoying thing beyond your control was when lesser posters
of the same political persuasion piled on to your error. These are
the type who don't discuss anything....they seek only to bicker & abuse.
It's best to consciously avoid inspiring their ilk.

Now, let's both proceed with a better understanding.