Trump and his nicknames

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Platforms mean little more than campaign promises made by a presidential candidate.
For example, time and again when he was running for office, Trump said he would build a wall between the United States and Mexico, and he would get Mexico to pay for that wall.
A person can say anything. What they actually do or what they can do is all that really matters.
 
I could ask the same thing of Democrats when they look at the party platform. Especially ones claiming to be Catholic. To each his own.
 
MANY of us have said we wish he wouldn’t take shots via twitter and name call. Is that going to stop us from supporting him based on the policies we believes he pushed and the types of judicial nominees he puts forward? No, nor should it. I’ll take a boorish man who puts justice Kavanaugh on the USSC over a mild-mannered man or woman who puts Stephen Breyer on there every day of the week.

I don’t see the democrats on this board being asked to apologize for the Democrat’s slavish love of abortion and gay marriage.
 
JoeShlabotnik said:
Had just a few more people voted for Clinton in 2016, we would not be where we are today.
Click to expand...
Quite true. We would have two more pro-abortion justices on the Supreme Court, the Little Sisters of the Poor would be unable to pursue their vocation, coal miners would be out of work, and we would be at war.

But when it comes to the names, a lot of people enjoy it after being called “deplorables”, “bitter clingers”, “irredeemables” and such. Trump “hits back” for them. That’s something libs don’t seem to understand and double down on to this day. People who support Trump know full well that the vitriol constantly expressed by the Dems and their media is actually directed at them. Trump is just the symbol.
 
Last edited:
Well said.Why this isn’t abu dantly clear. to everybody is a real head scratcher
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
I don’t see the democrats on this board being asked to apologize for the Democrat’s slavish love of abortion and gay marriage.
Click to expand...
You may be grossly overestimating how many of us are Democrats. I find that I’m regularly presumed to have voted for HRC and/or to be a supporter of “abortion rights” if I object to President Trump.

It seems to me that Donald Trump gets to have it both ways. Those who don’t like his boorishness tolerate it and those who eat it up get plenty of helpings. What other Republican who would also have appointed Kavanaugh gets Trump’s support when Trump misbehaves? Oh, that’s right, none of them. They don’t exist. Our choice is between Donald Trump and the Democrats, so we are apparently expected to tolerate whatever Donald Trump does to cultivate popularity with those who actually must be eating up his Twitter bombast, general rudeness and loose relationship with the facts. (If it is true that there really isn’t anybody to speak of who actually likes it, then it is really sad that the Republican who promised a health plan he didn’t have and promised a wall that isn’t getting built and that Mexico most definitely won’t be paying for got elected instead of some other Republican who didn’t make such empty promises and who isn’t such a shameless member of the Vladamir Putin Fan Club.)

When Donald Trump bad-mouthed other Republicans, when did he ever suffer any political consequences for it? Oh, that’s right, he didn’t. If you see the President with a firearm on 5th Avenue, better find cover, that’s all I know.
 
Last edited:
phil3 said:
And the economy would still be in the crapper.
Click to expand...
The economy had turned the corner in 2010 and has smoothl;y gained ground every since.
I give Trump credit for not blowing it, yet, but the idea that it was in the crapper until he came along is inconsistent with all economic data,
 
phil3 said:
And the economy would still be in the crapper.
Click to expand...
Find a graph and you’ll see the economy is continuing the trend it was on before Trump was elected.

There is reason to say he jumped in front of the parade and then pretended he organized the whole thing.

Where he gets off insulting people who annoy him even if he did orchestrate the whole thing is the question, though.

A habit of making personal attacks is a vice. Do other people do it? Sure. Does that excuse him? No. Can you name someone more prolific at it that he is? In elected office? I think not–well, OK, the new “millenial” reps in the House. They’re setting a new low for coarse and they need to be called on it, too.

In the meantime, President Trump’s faithful need to call him on it. If he got booed for it at campaign rallies, he’d cut it out. That won’t happen, though, because too many of his “faithful” eat it up and the rest apparently lack the courage to stand up for a higher standard for the GOP.

He does it because a lot of supporters like it and those who don’t like it lack the backbone to oppose it.

(Oh, and don’t get me started on the voters under 30 who oppose the GOP, whether they’re Green or Democratic or whatever, because if anything they’re the worst. Some of them would embarrass a dog.)

This isn’t a cable TV “reality” show. This is reality. This is our government. It is time for some standards.
 
Last edited:
Trump should be the patron saint of victim mythology.
A guy with a golden toilet who lives in a castle is just like you. Quite the sale
 
Don’t bother. To counter the graphs and data, they each have to recite the trumpitudes in public each day
 
Ridgerunner said:
But when it comes to the names, a lot of people enjoy it after being called “deplorables”, “bitter clingers”, “irredeemables” and such. Trump “hits back” for them. That’s something libs don’t seem to understand and double down on to this day. People who support Trump know full well that the vitriol constantly expressed by the Dems and their media is actually directed at them. Trump is just the symbol.
Click to expand...
They what? They enjoy being called “deplorables”? Yeah, just like Democrats like being called “libs” and “snowflakes.”

OK, I’ll bite. If the media’s attacks on Trump are just a symbol of their attack on whoever would vote for Trump, then Trump’s attacks are personal attacks on all the people who didn’t vote for Trump. When he calls particular people “low IQ,” he’s calling everyone who didn’t vote for him “low IQ,” and they enjoy it.

I suppose it is to some degree within the realm of vague possibility that this is partly true, but this is a pretty sick and frankly an entirely futile game you’re describing.

There is certainly nothing of the Gospel in it, least of all the Beatitudes. Our Lord did not teach us to curse our enemies or to revile those who persecute us. How can we cooperate with that? It is not as if it is necessary to tacitly approve of a vice because it is the vice of a fellow Christian who can do positive things politically…right?

Personally living the Gospel is the main thing, isn’t it? It is more important than the economy, more important than who is in power, more important than anything temporal, because the former has eternal consequences whereas the consequences of the latter are going to pass away.
 
Last edited:
If he shoots a pregnant woman, it will be the first unborn who would have been a bad guy in the RW media I fear.
 
They have a point.
Romney voted for witnesses in a trial. What Warner asked for as well as Kelly and Bolton on the same day.
Within hours CPAC cancelled his invite. The GOP are no longer independant and we have lost our Ballance of power.
 
Maximus1 said:
If he shoots a pregnant woman, it will be the first unborn who would have been a bad guy in the RW media I fear.
Click to expand...
When he says he could shoot somebody, he was not talking about women or children.

It is creepy to hear the videotape where he looked at a 13-or-so year old and imagined himself dating her out loud to her, but that was a long time ago. The man is an honest-to-goodness baby-kisser. I mean that I think he does like little kids, even though he says he did not have it in him to do the day-to-day care of his own children. (He is a bit of an odd duck, that way. Don’t know why.)

He has a salesman’s ability to suck up to people, just like Bill Clinton has. I don’t think that is totally put on, though. I think they’re both men who pretty transparently want everybody to like them and look up to them–Donald Trump because he’s the most competent and Bill Clinton because he understands the most. They both want to be “that guy” in the room, the guy that everybody likes and everybody thinks likes them. Even when Trump insults people, it is almost like he wants them to be good sports about it and like him, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
A guy with a golden toilet who lives in a castle is just like you. Quite the sale
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but he sure kept the Little Sisters from being persecuted by the power of the state. And he appointed prolife justices and keeps our foreign aid from financing overseas abortions. In that respect, he actually is “like me”, golden toilet or no golden toilet.
 
PetraG said:
Personally living the Gospel is the main thing, isn’t it? It is more important than the economy, more important than who is in power, more important than anything temporal, because the former has eternal consequences whereas the consequences of the latter are going to pass away.
Click to expand...
Killing innocent children is a long way from “living the Gospel”. And it’s immeasurably worse than calling people names because nobody dies just because somebody is called “lyin’ Ted” or “low-energy Jeb” or “Shifty Schiff”.

But the Dem party and every last officeholder in it (except Lipinski as long as the party isn’t able to primary him successfully) makes killing children a national policy. And for that reason, calling a person by that party name is worse than “lib” or “low IQ”.
PetraG said:
It is creepy to hear the videotape where he looked at a 13-or-so year old and imagined himself dating her out loud to her , but that was a long time ago.
Click to expand...
How much worse, then, for a president to promote abortion so his daughter would not “…be burdened by a baby”. His own grandchild is who he is talking about! How could a human being be so heartless, so devoid of human kindness? And yet, the abortion party and its supporters put him in office twice, whereupon he passed a regulation specifically to force religious organizations to provide abortifacients to their staffs and sent our tax money overseas to kill children there.
 
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha right

In the past three years been able to get another $8 per hour, And it is going up another 4 in a couple of months. Didnt happen under obama
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top