Trump's Last Line of Defense

[Jeanne_S]

He missed the point anyway, Josie. I was referring to a poster calling another poster a “liar”. PRmerger had to search back to 2014 to find where I called Hillary Clinton a “liar”. On the way, he would have found many, many posts in which I complained about posters calling each other “liars”.

In this particular case, dvdjs called me a liar, and that’s what I complained about. But of course PRmerger couldn’t find where I had ever called another poster a “liar”, so he just found the next best thing in 2014.

So far, out of my 36,000 odd posts, PRmerger has found two occasions in which I used insulting names in referring to public figures. He has undoubtedly searched for more words, or will, in order to make personal attacks on posters here. He has probably already searched your record and will come up with something you said back in 2010 or sometime.

Personal attack is everything for some.

Who has time to research 36,000 posts? Somebody needs to get a life!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Who has time to research 36,000 posts? Somebody needs to get a life!

It’s really part of the “argumentation by personal attack” that seems awfully prevalent among the anti-Trumpers nowadays. Calling Trump names and calling Trump supporters names is all the same to some of them, and substitutes for substantive argument a great deal.

 

[Jeanne_S]

It’s really part of the “argumentation by personal attack” that seems awfully prevalent among the anti-Trumpers nowadays. Calling Trump names and calling Trump supporters names is all the same to some of them, and substitutes for substantive argument a great deal.

This is one aspect of the forum I hope doesn’t carry over to the new format!
,

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is one aspect of the forum I hope doesn’t carry over to the new format!
,

I agree.

 

[fmchan52]

It’s really part of the “argumentation by personal attack” that seems awfully prevalent among the anti-Trumpers nowadays. Calling Trump names and calling Trump supporters names is all the same to some of them, and substitutes for substantive argument a great deal.

I wonder if anti-Trumpers will lose their sanity if Trump is president for another term? It
seems likely.

 

[josie_L]

He missed the point anyway, Josie. I was referring to a poster calling another poster a “liar”. PRmerger had to search back to 2014 to find where I called Hillary Clinton a “liar”. On the way, he would have found many, many posts in which I complained about posters calling each other “liars”.

In this particular case, dvdjs called me a liar, and that’s what I complained about. But of course PRmerger couldn’t find where I had ever called another poster a “liar”, so he just found the next best thing in 2014.

So far, out of my 36,000 odd posts, PRmerger has found two occasions in which I used insulting names in referring to public figures. He has undoubtedly searched for more words, or will, in order to make personal attacks on posters here. He has probably already searched your record and will come up with something you said back in 2010 or sometime.

Personal attack is everything for some.

Doesn’t bother me if he/she does.

 

[Theo520]

I wonder if anti-Trumpers will lose their sanity if Trump is president for another term? It
seems likely.

Maybe, I’ve heard that is a result from a strong economy, low unemployment, and enforcing the rule of law. They’ll be downright delirious.

 

[ProVobis]

Maybe, I’ve heard that is a result from a strong economy, low unemployment, and enforcing the rule of law. They’ll be downright delirious.

I think history shows the Federal Reserve Chair has a lot more to do with the economy than the President. To me the big test is whom does Trump appoint.

 

[EasterJoy]

I wonder if anti-Trumpers will lose their sanity if Trump is president for another term? It
seems likely.

It is entirely premature to speculate whether the President will run for re-election. He has not even been President for a year, and it doesn’t seem as if he’s particularly enjoying himself.

He does not have to be held captive in the White House to golf and send out cable-news-based insults on Twitter.

 

[Theo520]

I think history shows the Federal Reserve Chair has a lot more to do with the economy than the President. To me the big test is whom does Trump appoint.

While the fed reserve is important, you can measure Trump’s impact on policies that:

• reduce illegals (which lowers unemployment)
• steer us towards balanced trade.
• Money actually spent on infrastructure improvements (unlike we saw with stimulus $)
• Strong energy sector, with corresponding low energy costs.
• reduced regulation that puts a drag on businesses

 

[ProVobis]

• reduced regulation that puts a drag on businesses

What could he do that the repeal of Glass-Steagall didn’t do?

 

[PRmerger]

But she is liar and has been caught lying

Probably.

But the point is the hypocrisy. “When you call someone a liar it’s uncharitable. But when I do it it’s justified”.

Would that there was the same standard.

“I get to call people liars, and I extend the right to you, too”.

OR

“You shouldn’t call people liars. And neither should I.”

and therein lies the difference.

It would only be a distinction if it were proven that the accused is NOT lying.

There does not seem to be that proof, however.

 

[Theo520]

What could he do that the repeal of Glass-Steagall didn’t do?

How can you trivialize all regulation by the Govt to be represented by Glass-Steagall? I’m a firm supporter of judicious regulation. I like knowing my drinking water is safe, etc etc.

Below was a tally from before he hit the finish line

20,642 New Regulations Added in the Obama Presidency
The tide of red tape that threatens to drown U.S. consumers and businesses surged yet again in 2015, according to a Heritage Foundation study we released on Monday.

More than $22 billion per year in new regulatory costs were imposed on Americans last year, pushing the total burden for the Obama years to exceed $100 billion annually.

 

[fmchan52]

It is entirely premature to speculate whether the President will run for re-election. He has not even been President for a year, and it doesn’t seem as if he’s particularly enjoying himself.

He does not have to be held captive in the White House to golf and send out cable-news-based insults on Twitter.

I would have to disagree with the enjoyment part of your statement. I think he is having
a lot of fun battling with the press and never Trumpers.

 

[EasterJoy]

I would have to disagree with the enjoyment part of your statement. I think he is having a lot of fun battling with the press and never Trumpers

I really don’t think so. President Reagan enjoyed messing with the media. I think Mr. Trump takes them a great deal too seriously to feel anything like enjoyment.

 

[MidwestGuy]

I don’t know how you equate someone breaking forum rules with someone calling a politician a liar - that’s quite a stretch.

Probably.

But the point is the hypocrisy. “When you call someone a liar it’s uncharitable. But when I do it it’s justified”.

Would that there was the same standard.

“I get to call people liars, and I extend the right to you, too”.

OR

“You shouldn’t call people liars. And neither should I.”

It would only be a distinction if it were proven that the accused is NOT lying.

There does not seem to be that proof, however.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know how you equate someone breaking forum rules with someone calling a politician a liar - that’s quite a stretch.

Actually, I don’t think we’re supposed to do either one. But lately, both have been honored largely in the breach.

I do, however, think there’s a difference between applying epithets to a politician and directly insulting a poster here. That difference is that the politician is unaware of it and is probably indifferent anyway. When applied to an individual, the individual is aware of it and few are indifferent to it, particularly when it’s incessant.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know how you equate someone breaking forum rules with someone calling a politician a liar - that’s quite a stretch.

It’s quite easy. Either it’s wrong to call someone a liar, and no one should be doing it, or it’s permissible to call someone a liar, and then an anti-Trump person can do it just as well as a pro-Trump person.

That seems quite judicious, don’t you think?

 

[PRmerger]

I do, however, think there’s a difference between applying epithets to a politician and directly insulting a poster here.

You do know what I’m going to post next, right, Ridge?

There is an example coming of a poster feeling insulted by you–he felt you called him a…

wait for it…

wait for it…

LIAR.

So…again, why is it that you object so heartily to folks doing things which you permit for yourself?

I don’t understand.

 

[PRmerger]

Do you think that Catholics should have supported Hillary Clinton? That does not make
sense to me.

Well, I think that Catholics could have supported Hillary. Not necessarily *should *have.

Pope Benedict addressed this (as Cardinal Ratzinger):

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm