That's Called "Irony"
After weaponizing the DOJ to take on their opponents (particularly Trump), the White House is complaining ... about a DOJ report that claims President Biden suffers from memory loss. Mind you, Joe is 81 and most 81-year-olds suffer from some memory loss. And it's not like the DOJ is telling us what we don't already know. But it's okay to use the Department of Justice to take down your own opponents, but not okay if they find something you don't like? Ironic.
TLS
The report is that Donald Trump would encourage Russia to do "whatever the hell they want" to NATO nations that haven't paid their fair share. I know there are Trump-haters (TDS) -- whatever he says or does is evil -- and Trump-lovers (TLS) -- he can do no wrong. I just wonder if this falls under "he can do no wrong" for Trump lovers. I mean, if he's perfectly willing to disregard treaties with other nations, why would you expect him to remain faithful to you?
Shrinkflation and Other Nonsense
Joe Biden issued a call to companies to stop shrinkflation. You know what that is (I hope). They sell you the same product at the same price ... with less in it. Go ahead. Try to find a "gallon of ice cream" these days. Not likely. Mind you, they're doing it to keep you buying because the price of everything has gone up so much ... thanks largely of late to the highest inflation in years due to Joe Biden's policies. "It's a rip-off," Biden said. Yes, it is, but it's not because of them. "The American public is tired of being played for suckers." I think there you're wrong, Mr. President. You're still in the running for president, aren't you?
Hardship or Not Hardship
The president wants to expand the repayment of federal student loans, this time for "hardship." Wait ... wait ... you're saying that you were already canceling loans for people who were not facing financial hardship? You weren't doing it for that before, but now you are? Listen, Mr. President, there are quite a few people I know facing financial hardship that could use your loan forgiveness themselves. Since you were forgiving loans for people who were not in hardship, how about these folks now, too? Or ... could it be you're simply buying votes?
Must Bee Biden
Making hay with the Biden satire opportunties, the Bee reports that Biden said he can't remember a single time his memory has failed him. That's beelievable. In another story, Biden, a devout Catholic (he says), is giving up cognitive tests for Lent. Good choice. And, just for fun, the folks at the Bee say a sad farewell to the inventor of Pop-Tarts who died this week. They show his casket being lowered vertically into a slot in the ground. I get it.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
27 comments:
That seems to be the MO of politicians, and more frequently of the Left. "Do as I say, not as I do" is their motto. They tried to impeach Trump repeatedly without meeting the need of high crimes or treason. Then Republicans impeach the Homeland Security Secretary with the same lack of requirements, and they cry foul.
I don't like Trump, I don't trust Trump, but that whole speech sounded hyperbolic to me.
Yes Mr. President, it is a rip-off, but the only other options for businesses is to either take a loss by selling the same amount at a lower profit (to being at this point selling at a loss), or to sell the same amount at higher prices. Yes, the practice is deceptive, maybe even unethical, but they know how consumers perceive and we will continue to by at the same price less amount far easier than the same amount for more.
The definition given for hardship is vague enough to include all those he had originally wanted to buy off, I mean forgive loans.
It's sad that the Bee is stuck resorting to making satire of Biden based on stuff he's already said because he's gone so far down as to simply be a satire himself.
That's Called "Irony"
That's pretty much leftist S.O.P., isn't it?
TLS
The treaties call for a percentage of a member's cash going to defense, doesn't it? So as that hadn't been happening, as it may not be happening with all of them now, how is it you regard Trump's response to a failure to honor treaty obligations a failure on Trump's part? TDS much?
Shrinkflation and Other Nonsense
It's difficult for me to regard Biden supporters and the other Trump-haters who are complicit in Biden being in office as "suckers" as much as those who consciously have deceived themselves that their voting choices were honest, honorable or serving God and/or the nation.
And yeah, what Biden pretends is greed on the part of manufacturers is more rationally understood as a response to higher costs imposed upon them by Biden and others of his ilk in Congress.
Hardship or Not Hardship
For those who suffer hardship which befell them after having agreed to terms of the loan they chose to take out, there are already means by which they can ease their burden, such as refinancing, working overtime, cutting other costs, and other honorable options available to them. Forcing the rest of the nation to cover those debts is not among them.
Really, Art? You would say that I fall in the category of "Everything Trump does is wrong"? Have I ever exhibited that attitude? Have I not defended him at times? Or is this just a version that says, "Anyone that doesn't agree with Trump hates him" ... like the Left does with "anti-gay" and "anti-trans" rhetoric? Encouraging Russia to do what they want to them doesn't classify as "an ally," and hinging alliances on a purely monetary basis stinks to high heaven.
Clearly, I'm simply going to have to stop my News Weakly segment because you and others like you feel the need to attack me for failing to vote as per your instructions. Since you cannot maintain a friendly dialog on the subject, I'll have to stop talking about it entirely, I guess.
Just for the record, Biden is your problem. The Left is your problem. Not the people that failed to vote the way you wanted. You are assigning blame where it is not due. If Trump hadn't alienated so many voters (and if we had some confidence in the election process), perhaps more people would have voted for him. Note: I didn't vote for him in 2016 and he got elected, didn't he? The problems of the Left are not caused by people who didn't vote for the Left. You are making a practice of slander against Christians. Scripture is opposed to that.
While I think it was hyperbolic, the comment Trump made is indefensible. If NATO nations aren't paying what they said they'd pay, denying them the aid NATO provides is one thing. But encouraging the enemies of NATO member states to attack because of that failure to pay is not withholding aid but encouraging attack. That, sir, is what they call extortion. Local gangs do the same thing to store owners, pay your protection fees or something bad will happen, ie we'll come destroy your business. Personally, I think Trump was giving his normal over the top rhetoric, but politically, it's not a good thing to say.
David,
When are those like you and Stan (and Craig, for he responds the same way) going to accept that Trump has his own ways of doing things which should be quite commonly understood by now. Those derided as "Trump Trainers" or the like have always understood the guy quite well. The remarks are not an encouragement to Russia or anyone else to attack. They're an encouragement to NATO members to do what they promised to do. Enough with the pansy attitude.
Again, I think it was simply his over-the-top rhetoric, but he did in fact tell them that he would encourage Russia to attack them. I'm sure he wasn't serious about the threat, but all it did was add fuel to the fire for the Trump haters.
Hmmm. Either Stan didn't like my response to response to me, or I failed to hit the publish button. Probably the latter, so I'll try again.
"Really, Art? You would say that I fall in the category of "Everything Trump does is wrong"? Have I ever exhibited that attitude?"
One could not be blamed for believing so, but I'm not sure that I ever said such a thing. However, that doesn't mitigate the potential for suffering from TDS.
"Have I not defended him at times?"
Possibly, though nothing comes to mind. It depends what you mean by "defending him". If it only means that you reject an unfair attack against him, well, kudos for doing the minimum.
" Or is this just a version that says, "Anyone that doesn't agree with Trump hates him" ... "
No. It's a version of "you chose to denigrate him for suggesting he'll reject his treaty obligations when he was responding to those who already have". That stinks to high heaven.
"Clearly, I'm simply going to have to stop my News Weakly segment because you and others like you feel the need to attack me for failing to vote as per your instructions."
Not at all. But a disclaimer that you're above reproach might reduce "attacks" considerably. In the meantime, given so many of your News Weakly posts are attacks on others, this seems problematic.
"Since you cannot maintain a friendly dialog on the subject, I'll have to stop talking about it entirely, I guess."
Are you saying "TDS much?" indicates a failure to engage in friendly dialogue? Over-sensitive much?
"Just for the record, Biden is your problem. The Left is your problem."
Correction: Biden and the left is our problem, as in America's problem. How people vote determine whether or not some understand the problem as well as whether or not some are part of the problem. I haven't seen anyone explain how not voting for Trump in 2016 was a good idea in terms of mitigating America's problems nor how that was the case in rejecting him in 2020. After suffering the consequences of his second term having been stolen from him then, it's even worse for those who reject him a third time. Thus, the people who didn't vote as I did (not that I'm a genius or needed to be) are indeed part of the problem of what ails the nation. It's not a deep mystery.
"You are assigning blame where it is not due."
Because Trump "alienated" people? Really? What does that say about the "alienated" that they're so driven to pearl clutching when so much more is at stake than their personal feelings about Trump. I didn't vote for Trump as much as I did for what he sought to do and because of what he did. And his four years answers the question of our having been better off than we were before and now after him. Too many feel themselves sophisticated in rejecting him for that which really doesn't matter, and it matters far, far less so than it did when the choice was either him or Hillary. The nation isn't served by such sanctimonious nonsense. And we found just how badly the nation suffered because of it. That's far more contemptible than the straight up Dem voter.
"Note: I didn't vote for him in 2016 and he got elected, didn't he?"
That does not absolve you. That's called "dodging a bullet".
"The problems of the Left are not caused by people who didn't vote for the Left."
But they are the result of those who didn't do all they could to prevent the left from taking power.
"You are making a practice of slander against Christians."
It's not slander if it's true. Here's a hint: It's true.
You tell me, Art. Is this the kind of response you would classify as "friendly"? Or would you classify it as a violation of the only rule on commenting that I have?
What's "unfriendly" about it? So far as I can tell, it's merely that I disagree with you. No Stan. That doesn't qualify as "unfriendly" to any but the most overly sensitive soul. I find that surprising in you. I haven't called you any names. Fearing you suffer from TDS isn't name calling but a conclusion based on your references to Trump, particularly how you chose to suggest "he's perfectly willing to disregard treaties with other nations" when he was responding to other nations disregarding the terms of the treaty between them. How am I the bad guy here for pointing out this error on your part? The bulk of your posts speak to errors on the part of others.
The Trump NATO comment is a classic example of making a valid point (that NATO members should pay what they are required to pay and not depend on the US to cover their share of the costs), in a stupid way. To invite hostile nations to attack NATO allies, while saying that the US will ignore article 5 is simply wrong. To write it off as Trump being Trump and that we should ignore what he really says in favor of what others say he really meant, is ridiculous.
When Biden says he'll do something that violates US laws, the TLS folks are all over him, and tell us how Biden's actions are the end of the world. Yet when Trump advocates ignoring US law, we should just accept it
I don't know if it's the way you write, but I couldn't help reading that in an aggressive, accusatory voice.
In response, Trump didn't simply say that if they didn't uphold their end he wouldn't uphold his. The problem comes when he says he would encourage others to attack them. That's where it becomes extortion. On the other hand, I don't believe he would have, but he still said he would.
David,
I get the same sense as you do.
I also agree with your conclusions. Regardless of the fact that Trump's view on NATO members paying the amount they're obligated to pay is correct, his encouragement of attacks on those nations and the threat to ignore Article 5, is problematic.
What's bizarre about this whole conversation is that Stan, David and I all seem to want Trump to avoid saying things that are stupid, inflammatory, or wrong. I think that we all want Trump to act like an adult on the campaign trail.
Alright ... let's see, Art. I have "TDS" because I find it abhorrent that Trump would urge Russia to attack nations that don't pay up. That, apparently, is a good thing in your eyes. "Either abide by our agreement or we'll encourage our enemies to attack you." You argue that no one (specifically me) can have any honesty, honor, or service to God by voting for someone other than Trump. It CANNOT be conscience, a matter of faith, or anything but a delusion ... at best. You continue to blame me and others like me for Biden's win because we felt obligated by Scripture and conscience not to vote for Trump for Biden's win. Mind you, Scripture says that all authority is established by God. But, no, it's my fault. I'm the reason that Biden is causing the nation difficulties. If I had done the right thing (vote the way you required), God would have been able to do what He intended.
That's what you call "friendly." Seems pretty slanderous, false, and hostile to me.
What's strange is that I did vote for Trump in both 2016, and 2020 (held my nose both times) and Art still blames me for Biden winning and accuses me of TDS. I guess pointing out Trump's failures, his refusal to take accountability for his failures, and things like the comments about NAtO, can't be tolerated.
I guess we'll all be forced to get on the Trump train, no matter what.
All I know is that Trump has got himself so hated by even people on the right that the Demokrats will win the election hands down.
But ... he's polling better than Biden and winning primaries.
Stan first,
"let's see, Art. I have "TDS" because I find it abhorrent that Trump would urge Russia to attack nations that don't pay up"
But this doesn't match your original comment which was a slight against him for supposedly failing to hold up his end of the treaty, when in fact he was responding to others who have proven themselves failures in holding up their end. Now you choose to focus on the some perceived "urge" for Russia to attack if they don't pay up. However, it must first be acknowledged that there is no obligation to defend those who break their treaty promise. In other words, he's simply saying, "Sure Russia...do what what you like. We have no duty to defend them since they broke faith and the treaty between us." In yet other words, why should involve ourselves in foreign entanglements made worse by the failure of alleged partners who won't fulfill their obligations? Oh no! Let's focus on Trump and denigrate his righteous frustration at other nations again taking advantage of American good will. Yeah. That's better. We in the real world call what Trump said to be hyperbole, but one which reflects the reality of what it means to break a treaty, as those who fail to contribute as promised have done. You clearly WANT to believe that he'd encourage attacks on other nations. I fully doubt Russia takes it that way.
There comes a time when in dealing with those who wish to depend upon us that they be made aware of what a bad idea it is to take advantage. But no...look to Trump to chastise, not those who are actually failing in their obligations. That couldn't possibly be TDS!
"You argue that no one (specifically me) can have any honesty, honor, or service to God by voting for someone other than Trump. It CANNOT be conscience, a matter of faith, or anything but a delusion ... at best."
How are you honoring God by allowing the last three years where your fellow Americans have suffered as a result of Trump being denied? Where in Scripture are we obliged to let people suffer rather than to prevent it by supporting an imperfect person? Show me that passage. I'll be happy to concede. There was no one other than Trump in 2020. There was only Biden and him. No third party, no write-in had an ice cube's chance in hell of beating either of them. No one. This wasn't a surprise. It was a given. So the choice was between pro-American policies which improving the nation, or Biden who was well known to anyone paying the least bit of attention as being a disaster. Yeah. That's how we serve God. Sure. Trump's character flaws weren't on the ballot. His record was and his policies were and the difference between ongoing benefit to your fellow Americans or a reversal of that benefit was.
People are now suffering from a variety of ills due to Trump being denied, but hey...I can pretend I'm right with God for denying the only person who would have prevented it. Sure.
" You continue to blame me and others like me for Biden's win because we felt obligated by Scripture and conscience not to vote for Trump for Biden's win."
You're without a doubt complicit by your refusal to vote for Trump. All who rejected him with a Biden presidency looming is. Even to concede the fact of the many ways the election was corrupted, cheating is impossible when everyone votes for one guy. Cheating is less possible the more support for the target of cheating. Those like you want to speak of conscience, but I don't believe your conscience is clear by allowing what was not even in question, but only to what degree. You are guilty whether you want to believe it or not.
It just stuns me, beyond my ability to describe how much, that anyone would dare suggest that a vote for Trump is a vote to promote his character flaws, when so much is on the line in such a situation. It's abjectly ludicrous that anyone so otherwise brimming with intelligence and wisdom would act in a manner so contrary to that and then believe he's serve the Lord. "Yeah...sure... my family died in the fire, but no way was I going to call upon those firemen who cheat on their wives." Brilliant!
"Mind you, Scripture says that all authority is established by God. But, no, it's my fault. I'm the reason that Biden is causing the nation difficulties. If I had done the right thing (vote the way you required), God would have been able to do what He intended."
So when it's convenient, God doesn't work through us? God doesn't use all for His purpose? How does God get a mean tweeter in power if none of us vote for the guy? Tell me how that works. If all "good" people thought of the impact on the nation when they vote, and still the buffoon gets more votes, that's one thing. But when "good" people play ignore the impact on the nation, they really aren't "good" people, regardless of how much they insist they're serving God by that ignorance.
"If I had done the right thing (vote the way you required), God would have been able to do what He intended."
This is cheap rationalization, as if Trump in office would not have been God doing what He intended. It's not "me" who requires intelligent voting. It's the nation, and it is not unBiblical to consider how our actions affect our fellow man, is it? You had an opportunity to aid in preventing the suffering our nation has endured since Jan of '21. You chose to ignore it. You chose to reject it. And you pretend you served God by doing so.
"That's what you call "friendly." Seems pretty slanderous, false, and hostile to me."
No more so than what you do in most of your posts when you speak of how people act in a manner that is contrary to Scripture or common sense. But clearly you need to defend yourself by suggesting I'm being any of those things for speaking truthfully and sincerely about how YOU'VE erred by acting contrary to reason and righteousness. Before you twist that, keep in mind that I don't disregard any of Trump's character flaws, but only insist that we don't go to the polls to promote those, but to secure the good policies on which he campaigns and prevent the obvious and easily predicted harm of allowing the other side to win.
My love for my fellow man demands better than to focus on the insignificant where their lives are concerned.
Craig,
You seem to think that those like Putin are abject morons. Yet when Trump was in office, few of them risked messing with anyone not named the United States of America because he proved how he would respond to them. So to suggest that in this case they'd take Trump's expression to mean they have carte blanche to do what they want is absurd in the highest degree. As I said before, Trump wasn't giving anyone permission to anything, but instead was insisting alleged allies need to do what they contractually obliged themselves to do. I have little doubt that our adversaries are confused about his meaning and that only his detractors here would suggest otherwise. But hey...I know you guys need whatever rationalization you can scrape up for position.
David,
If you don't believe Trump would actually encourage some nation like Russia to attack NATO allies who won't fulfill their contractual obligations, then why focus on it as if anyone else would. You don't like the guy and don't believe he'd do that, but you think others would? You think someone like Putin would? That seems a bit incongruent.
And you want to regard it as "extortion". But what term can we use for those who take advantage and continue to withhold what they owe, and while doing so still expect that we defend them? It's not in any way extortion to say, "do what you promised to do or you're on your own". It's no worse than, "you broke your promise and as such I'm not obliged to keep mine as the contract between us is now void. Good luck with those who would choose to mess with you. They're now free to do what they want without my interfering.". That's not "extortion". That's "you made your choice, now live with the consequences". But again, you guys need whatever you can scrape up to validate your dislike of the guy, regardless of the consequences your fellow Americans might suffer.
Craig,
"What's bizarre about this whole conversation is that Stan, David and I all seem to want Trump to avoid saying things that are stupid, inflammatory, or wrong."
Who doesn't, Craig? Can you name anyone? What's truly bizarre is how many who should know better put so much stock in insisting this guy who is 77 years old is going to change now...that this guy who's been saying goofy stuff for most of his life isn't understood by those who've been paying the least amount of attention. If this "stupid thing" Trump said compels NATO allies to do what they promised to do, that's a good thing. Do you think asking them nicely will compel them as strongly? They signed a freakin' treaty, for gosh sakes! As I said, I doubt others around the world are confused about what his intentions are.
What's the downside here? Trump says what you insist is stupid and the consequence is no NATO ally fails to pay up while he's president. Yeah. That's horrible. They can go on trying to screw us after his second term ends. After all, we've got money to burn.
"What's strange is that I did vote for Trump in both 2016, and 2020 (held my nose both times) and Art still blames me for Biden winning and accuses me of TDS."
Wow. This conflicts with things you've said in past discussions. I can only recall you saying that you didn't and that you wouldn't and that you won't. As I just went through over three years of your blog posts, I don't recall any indication to the contrary. Now I'm totally confused. But if you truly voted for him in both elections, then no, of course you bear no responsibility for the horror which has befallen us since that last election, except for the extent I am by not having been more persuasive to other Trump-haters.
" I guess pointing out Trump's failures, his refusal to take accountability for his failures, and things like the comments about NAtO, can't be tolerated."
Well! THAT'S a nice perversion of reality. You promote those things as reason to reject him in the upcoming election. THAT is what is intolerable as they fail as legitimate reasons for such rejection, given the alternative. I don't think my position on this point is the least bit vague, so don't run that nonsense again.
"I guess we'll all be forced to get on the Trump train, no matter what."
If you guys don't feel compelled by all the negative consequences of his having been denied in 2020, there's something seriously wrong with you and I grieve for your offspring and theirs. We simply can't have another Dem win on any level and as president, there's no other choice we have. It won't be Nikki.
Glenn,
"All I know is that Trump has got himself so hated by even people on the right that the Demokrats will win the election hands down."
You "know" this? What I know is that too many who likely regard themselves as intelligent have allowed themselves to be affected by nonsense they should have the maturity to disregard. It's a sad indictment on the character of the nation that so many can't see beyond the insignificant and focus on what matters.
Trump didn't "get himself" hated. People choose to hate. OK, fine. I hate what the Democrats...the "modern progressives"...are doing to this country, and to my children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren (I don't have yet, but it won't be that long...). Trump is one person getting in the way of more of that and somehow some pretend they're doing God's will by withholding their votes. I have a hard time not seeing that as an assault on my family and friends and I don't give a flying rat's backside that they get all weepy about it.
Got it, Art, clear as day. Anyone who is not onboard with your "Trump must be president" perception is evil ... at best. Any perceived slight of the man is a perceived attack. Clear enough. Most clear is the fact that you can't have a friendly dialog on the topic of Trump in any way. You're generally able to have a dialog on other topics. I can't imagine what makes this one "the one." I won't be discussing it with you further since it is embarrassing (to the name of Christ) in light of Jesus's claim that the hallmark of believers is their love for one another and this does not look like that. I'm done here.
"You seem to think that those like Putin are abject morons."
Well Dan, I guess you can concoct this sort of fanciful nonsense and attribute it to me if you'd like, but I can't remember ever commenting on Putin's mental capabilities.
It's interesting that you insist that Trump "meant" something other than what he said. Which makes me wonder why shouldn't Trump be fairly criticized for saying something other than what he really "meant"? It seems possible to make the point that others in NATO or the UN for that matter aren't holding up their end of the bargain, which is a fair point. Yet to do so by saying that the US will fail to uphold their Article 5 commitments, in violation of US law, seems problematic.
"Wow. This conflicts with things you've said in past discussions. I can only recall you saying that you didn't and that you wouldn't and that you won't."
No it doesn't. I have been intentional in not revealing who I voted for (until now) because I was brought up to believe that one's vote is not something to be shared. In this case, I felt it necessary to make an objection. But if you'd like to insist that your "recall" is more accurate than my memory of who I voted for, go right ahead. So, please show me a quote/link to prove your claim or retract it. Your choice.
"Well! THAT'S a nice perversion of reality."
Good lord, your insistence that you know what "reality" is sounds like Dan.
"You promote those things as reason to reject him in the upcoming election."
No, I point those things out because I'd like to think that an adult is capable of acknowledging and fixing their mistakes. I point those things out to make clear what obstacles Trump himself has put in place regarding my decision about who to vote for. I point these things out as a counter to folks like you who seem to ignore or minimize these failures.
" THAT is what is intolerable as they fail as legitimate reasons for such rejection, given the alternative. I don't think my position on this point is the least bit vague, so don't run that nonsense again."
This Dan like behavior is disturbing. The problem is that you are insisting that anyone who doesn't slavishly adopt your personal, subjective, 100% commitment to Trump should not be tolerated is absurd. Obviously you think your position is perfect or near perfect, if you didn't you wouldn't cling to it so excessively hard.
This notion that Trump and his actions have nothing to do with why people "hate" him, is patently absurd. Trump is somehow exempt from the notion that one's actions and words have consequences.
Trump might be "one person", but he's not the only person. He might not even be the best person.
The reality is that he is very likely to be the only alternative to Biden, and that we're once again forced to choose between to less than optimal candidates.
So angry about something that can't be fixed, and seemingly missing the point of what was said. What other world leaders think of what he said doesn't matter to me, but what his opponents in the US does. He's simply adding fuel to the fire of the hatred of him. Oh, and there are those that believe he is a great and wonderful man, a great example of Christianity. That is why I don't like him, he reflects an horrible image of Christ to the world.
I know you guys aren't keen on this conversation going any further, because you can't deal with people who won't look at Trump as you do, by saying I insist you see things my way. That's not been true of me despite how often you seem to need it to be so.
My position remains as it has from his first running for president. My concern is the nation. Given the choices available at election time, he's better for the nation. One isn't required to love the guy, though I agree that would be better if everyone found him more lovable. And gosh what an awful shame that is that it isn't so. What is so, and Craig...try to make a convincing argument some time that this isn't reality...the Dem Party is way off the rails, more than it has ever been. These last three plus years have been an absolute horror show and many Americans are suffering greatly as a result. Anyone who wants to claim they're serving God by refusing every means available to them to mitigate that suffering has an incredibly strange notion of what it means to serve God. This is a political election and the state of the union is the point of it...not some statement on our moral beliefs and hopes. One can't say they don't rely on politicians to move us closer to God and at the same time say that the best option available with any hope of winning the election is an insult to Him and thus unworthy of one's vote. It's counter intuitive and wholly incoherent. It's posturing.
Craig.
Don't give me this guff about knowing how you voted. I'm referring to comments you've made which imply, if not outright insist, that you didn't vote for him and won't this time around. I may indeed be mistaken on this, and I'm not going to go through every comment from every blog where any discussion of this guy came up in order to copy/paste what I believe you've said. Stan worries about "friendly" discussion and you seem to call me "Dan".
You get worked up about Trump's words and then there's something wrong with me because I suggest you must think those like Putin are morons. Why be concerned about what Trump said? Because it offends YOU?? This guy's been a known quantity from long before his political journey began and you can't get over it.
For all you guys worried how Trump makes people hate him, I insist you could allay that hatred by pointing out the difference between his time in office and the eight years prior and three plus after and simply ask which is preferred. How can anyone think themselves wise by comparing the three and risk more of the two over what's so meaningless and insignificant? "Yeah, I know things are going down the toilet fast, but there's no way I'll vote for Trump until he stops making me hate him!"
So it's crystal clear now. Trump's Trump, and what are ya gonna do about it? Let the nation suffer even more. God bless you all. I was unsure what "serving God" meant. Please supply the passage which validates that in any way. I'll wait here.
Post a Comment