Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Saying you don’t like the way Obama did his job is not the same thing as saying he has no experience doing that job.
He did such a lousy job because he had absolutely positively no experience whatsoever that would be helpful to being president of United States. He was elected solely because of the color of his skin. He was given the Nobel peace prize solely because of the color of his skin in fact one could make the case if not for the color of his skin he would be running boogie boards on Waikiki Beach
 
He did such a lousy job because he had absolutely positively no experience whatsoever that would be helpful to being president of United States. He was elected solely because of the color of his skin. He was given the Nobel peace prize solely because of the color of his skin in fact one could make the case if not for the color of his skin he would be running boogie boards on Waikiki Beach
You are entitled to your opinion. However there are not many who share it. It still boils down to the fact that you don’t like the things he did. I suppose Obama was elected president of the Harvard Law Review because of the color of his skin too, eh?
 
And you, too, need to go back and read the series of posts leading to that one. In particular, my post 697 where I spell out why Churchill’s years of public service prior to the war were not as stellar as some suppose.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14121877&postcount=697

I am well aware of when his political career started, but that is not the issue, now is it? The issue concerns when he actually got things right as a public servant. Advocating the use of chemicals on Kurdish tribesmen or pushing for the sterilization of the mentally infirm is not what I would call “getting things right.” Would you?

Meltzerboy followed the discussion and asked the correct question. I don’t think rehashing the same points will get us anywhere.
I think that being the equivalent of the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense during WWI qualifies as proving himself. Trump has never served in a public capacity, ever, and has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of most public policy questions. Before Churchill was ever considered for Prime Minister, he had given almost all of his life to the service of his country. So a pretty major difference. Comparing Trump to Churchill is more than laughable.
 
He created jobs for the sole purpose of benefiting himself and his business.
Replace the words “jobs” and “business” with the words “political access” and “foundation,” and you have a good case to be made for why HRC should not be president.

She created political access for the sole purpose of benefiting herself and her foundation.
 
He did such a lousy job because he had absolutely positively no experience whatsoever that would be helpful to being president of United States. He was elected solely because of the color of his skin. He was given the Nobel peace prize solely because of the color of his skin in fact one could make the case if not for the color of his skin he would be running boogie boards on Waikiki Beach
Whoa, Mamma! And I got infracted? This statement is very offensive.
 
I think that being the equivalent of the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense during WWI qualifies as proving himself. Trump has never served in a public capacity, ever, and has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of most public policy questions. Before Churchill was ever considered for Prime Minister, he had given almost all of his life to the service of his country. So a pretty major difference. Comparing Trump to Churchill is more than laughable.
Politicians and others can “serve their country” and do a poor job at it. Merely counting years of service does not make the case that the public servant has done a great or even passable job in serving the public.

Let’s not confuse the issue by equivocating between merely serving in a public capacity and demonstrating competency at it. The politicians who have run the country of Venezuela and some of the cities in the US into the ground exemplify that serving the public in government office does not automatically entail competency in public service.
 
You are entitled to your opinion. However there are not many who share it.
Huh?

Obama’s approval rating has just barely squeaked above 50% for the first time since 2013. It would seem that there are, indeed, “MANY who share it;” in fact, the majority of citizens since 2013.
 
Politicians and others can “serve their country” and do a poor job at it. Merely counting years of service does not make the case that the public servant has done a great or even passable job in serving the public.

Let’s not confuse the issue by equivocating between merely serving in a public capacity and demonstrating competency at it. The politicians who have run the country of Venezuela and some of the cities in the US into the ground exemplify that serving the public in government office does not automatically entail competency in public service.
How many times do you need to be reminded of the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition?
 
Huh?

Obama’s approval rating has just barely squeaked above 50% for the first time since 2013. It would seem that there are, indeed, “MANY who share it;” in fact, the majority of citizens since 2013.
You are conflating two different positions. One is the position that says I do not approve of the job Obama has been doing. And that percentage is, as you say, near 50%. The other position is the one I was responding to, which was:
He did such a lousy job because he had absolutely positively no experience whatsoever that would be helpful to being president of United States. He was elected solely because of the color of his skin. He was given the Nobel peace prize solely because of the color of his skin in fact one could make the case if not for the color of his skin he would be running boogie boards on Waikiki Beach
And that is the position that I said was not shared by many. As you can see, one position is much more extreme than the other. 50% agreeing with the first position certainly does not mean than 50% agree with the second one.
 
Litany of St. Joseph

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.
Jesus, hear us. Jesus graciously hear us.

God, the Father of Heaven,
God, the Son, Redeemer of the world, God, the Holy Spirit, Holy Trinity, One God, have mercy on us.

Holy Mary, pray for us

St. Joseph, Renowned offspring of David, Light of Patriarchs, Spouse of the Mother of God, Chaste guardian of the Virgin, Foster father of the Son of God, Diligent protector of Christ, Head of the Holy Family, Joseph most just, Joseph most chaste, Joseph most prudent, Joseph most strong, Joseph most obedient, Joseph most faithful, Mirror of patience, Lover of poverty, Model of artisans, Glory of home life, Guardian of virgins, Pillar of families, Solace of the wretched, Hope of the sick, Patron of the dying, Terror of demons, Protector of Holy Church — pray for us!

Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world.

He made him the lord of his household.And prince over all his possessions.

Lord, have mercy
Lord, have mercy.
Jesus, graciously hear us.

Let us pray, — O God, in your ineffable providence you were pleased to choose Blessed Joseph to be the spouse of your most holy Mother; grant, we beg you, that we may be worthy to have him for our intercessor in heaven whom on earth we venerate as our Protector: You who live and reign forever and ever.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.
 
Actually, I kind of like this guy:

tarekfatah.com

He is a journalist and talk show host (though not “mainstream”) AND he is Muslim.

He gives reasoned and thoughtful analysis on questions regarding Islam that the mainstream media simply ignores or dismisses.

And, hey, what do you know? He happens to endorse Trump over Clinton. :eek:

youtu.be/leXvvk7inw0

That certainly runs counter to your storyline, doesn’t it?

Why wasn’t he on your list of possible candidates, above?

I suppose you have never heard of him.

Let me guess…

Your first instinct after reading this will be to go out and dig up the dirt on Fatah to discredit and dismiss him, yes?

The extent to which you cannot resist that urge is the extent to which liberal progressivism has infected your brain AND the extent to which you operate according to the belief that rhetoric beats dialectic – fallacious thinking as in the naturalistic fallacy has more compelling force for you than reason and logical argumentation.

But, hey don’t let me stop you.

What did you find on Fatah?
I have in fact heard of him, I just didn’t expect you to mean a Canadian social democrat Bernie Sanders supporter. It isn’t that he supports Trump it is that he hates Clinton with a fiery passion and given what is most important to him it really isn’t surprising he hates her.
Oh, and I like this guy, too:

maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2016/08/obama-the-brazen-liar.html

I suppose you never heard of him, either.
Not my cup of tea
That’s not true.

Where the Republicans exist, they help a lot.

Mayor Giuliani did a fabulous job turning New York City around.

Rudy Giuliani’s policies brought down crime by 76 percent.

washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-rudy-giulianis-policies-brought-down-crime-by-76-percent/2016/08/19/799b0c02-65f3-11e6-b4d8-33e931b5a26d_video.html
You are aware that across the entire country crime plummeted during his tenure, right?
Well, if you want to ignore a great deal of history, you might be led to the conclusion that Churchill had a long and glorious career as member of parliament. The reality is a little different than you suppose.

A few of the more controversial aspects of his years as member of parliament include:
  1. Drafting legislation to amend the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913, which would have forced sterilization of anyone considered “feeble-minded.”
  2. Preventing a fire brigade from extinguishing the fire in a house where two robbers were trapped, justifying his decision by claiming it would be better to “let the house burn down” than risk the lives of fire fighters trying to rescuing the occupants. The robbers died in the fire.
  3. As minister of war and air and colonial secretary, Churchill ordered air power used against the Kurdish people in Iraq and suggested the use poisonous gas to put down the rebellion.
  4. After Churchill rejoined the Conservative Party in 1922 and subsequently lost his seat in 1929, he was generally considered a right-wing extremist and “out of touch” with the people.
Churchill was a fairly repugnant man, even his contemporaries found his attitudes exceptionally brutish and antediluvian with his desire to subjugate non-Aryans who to him were sub-human filth, put them in concentration camps, cleanse them, starve them, wanted to kill Gandhi, barely flinched at the horror that was Amritsar, etc. He was the lovely fellow who created the Israel-Palestine conflict and judging by his disdain for both Arabs and Jews may have desired them to kill each other for all time. By the way, he gave us the mess that is Iraq. The man had much in common with Hitler save he deferred to military advice.
 
He did such a lousy job because he had absolutely positively no experience whatsoever that would be helpful to being president of United States. He was elected solely because of the color of his skin. He was given the Nobel peace prize solely because of the color of his skin in fact one could make the case if not for the color of his skin he would be running boogie boards on Waikiki Beach
But he was good at golf!
 
Politicians and others can “serve their country” and do a poor job at it. Merely counting years of service does not make the case that the public servant has done a great or even passable job in serving the public.

Let’s not confuse the issue by equivocating between merely serving in a public capacity and demonstrating competency at it. The politicians who have run the country of Venezuela and some of the cities in the US into the ground exemplify that serving the public in government office does not automatically entail competency in public service.
OK, so you are seriously going with the position that Winston Churchill did not serve his nation well, but Trump has? Unbelievable.
 
You are aware that across the entire country crime plummeted during his tenure, right?

.
Not 78%.

Not even close.

NYC had a more or less Republican mayor after Rudy.

And places like Chicago and Detroit are murder capitals.

Their modest decline in crime was due to reduced birth rates.

But black-on-black murder, gang murder and drug crime are reaching stratospheric levels.
 
I don’t have a corresponding thesis that says that. I only claim that experience is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition, for doing a good job as President.

Even first year teachers get some experience teaching during their training. And they are not trying to start out at the top of their field. But Trump is.

Would you hire a painter with no experience to paint your house? Would you hire a plumber with no experience to design the plumbing system of a new school? Would you trust a doctor with no experience in heart surgery to do open heart surgery on you? I don’t think so. I think that is pretty compelling.
What experience did Barak Hussein Obama have? A community organizer? Give me a break!
 
Guess who George Soros is backing financially. He funnels $25,000 through every means possible and has his own personal agenda for this country
 
Guess who George Soros is backing financially. He funnels $25,000 through every means possible and has his own personal agenda for this country
Yes,it is beyond frightening what this man and his minions have done to Europe’s economy and now ours! Evil indeed!😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top